NAC

May 17, 1999

You wrote:

<<

Hi n,

.......You have asked about posts about the NAC and so has . I didn't

get much response to my question about it and can't seem to track down much

on the internet except promotional stuff from companies selling it. Several

people mentionned that it can be dangerous in large doses. Sue B. who is also

on this list sent me some info via another list and I would imagine she would

be willing to post it here? Apparently it is only 10% bioavailable orally. I

still have no idea what the difference is between

taking NAC and taking immunocal, whose active ingredient according to their

literature is NAC. Does anyone know this?

best of luck,

Beth

>>>

Hi,

Thanks for that info about the NAC being one of the main ingredients in the

Immunocal. I have not found anyone taking it on the lists that I am

following. The only place I have seen reference to it, is in a book I was

reading a few months ago, called:

The Brain Wellness Plan by Dr Jay Lombard, (Board Certified Neurologist) and

Carl Germano, RD, CNS, LDN.

This book does a good job of presenting current thought on what the brain

needs to stay well, and what they believe the brain needs to recover from

to read.

The subtitle is: Breakthrough Medical, Nutritional, and Immune-Boosting

Therapies To Prevent and Treat: Alzheimer's Disease, Chronic Fatigue

Syndrome, Attention Deficit Disorder, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's

Disease, Lou Gehrig's Disease.

I found it fascinating reading, and there were a few references to patients

who were having improvement or success with the protocols listed in the book,

but I got the impression that some of what they present may be still in the

theory stage, and not fully tested.

Also one of the authors, was working for a supplement company...forget which

one.

I would also be very interested in more information about this substance.

Jane

May 23, 1999

In a message dated 5/17/99 6:17:48 AM Central Daylight Time,

SlvrMoon2@... writes:

<< Thanks for that info about the NAC being one of the main ingredients in

the

Immunocal. I have not found anyone taking it on the lists that I am

following. The only place I have seen reference to it, is in a book I was

reading a few months ago, called:

The Brain Wellness Plan by Dr Jay Lombard, (Board Certified Neurologist) and

Carl Germano, RD, CNS, LDN. >>

Hi Jane....

Just wanted to let you and the list know that NAC (33.33MG) is an ingredient

in a supplement called NutriPlenish that I have recently started taking for

leaky gut syndrome. I am working with a local pharmacist who has done a lot

of research into using supplements to help people get back into the best

shape their systems can be in. The idea, of course, is to support the body

so that our own healing mechanisms can do their jobs. I would encourage

anyone who is using supplements in this way to try and find a health care

professional who can help them through the maze of information that is out

there.

I have already noticed a slight improvement in the way I feel....not so much

of an increase in energy, but a better sense of well being. I really believe

this is moving in the right direction.

Take care,

Maxine

June 14, 2001

Hi MM, and Winter,

MM, NAC should be taken with plenty of vitamin C to help prevent it from

being oxidized but I know of no reason to think it should be taken on an

empty stomach. LEF's Life Extension Mix contains 600 mg of NAC and about 2.5

grams of vitamin C.

Winter, I believe the phrase " prelabeled with N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC) "

means something similar to " pretreated with radiolabeled N-acetyl-cysteine "

in the sentence " When cells were prelabeled with N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC),

a substrate for glutathione synthesis, a significant reduction in damage was

measured " . The researchers refer to " radiolabeling " in a previous sentence,

which is I believe reference to use of radioactive agents used in the

detection and measurement of the amino acids.

The key point is that the rabbit cornea cells suffered less damage from

cigarette smoke when they were treated with NAC. It's interesting that NAC

appears to be helpful both to smokers and drinkers. Someone ought to sell

NAC supplements in bars.

LEF sells a product for use by alcohol drinkers called " Anti-Alcohol

Antioxidants " , designed to lessen the deleterious effects of alcohol. I am

currently acting as a consultant to a company in the process of developing a

similar product. My advice to them is to use NAC rather than cysteine. NAC

appears to confer the same benefits as cysteine with respect to its ability

to bind and reduce acetaldehyde from ethanol metabolism, but without the

excitotoxicity problem of cysteine. Also NAC appears superior to cysteine

with respect to its ability to enhance production of glutathione.

The LEF product contains a whopping one gram of cysteine per dose. The LEF

formula is based on a study in which cysteine and vitamin C and vitamin B1

were found to prevent acetaldehyde induced death in mice. I think LEF was

short-sighted in their attempt to conform to the exact formula used in that

animal research. NAC should be safer and more effective.

-gts

June 18, 2001

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:54:40 -0400

" gts " <gts@...> wrote:

> MM, NAC should be taken with plenty of vitamin C to help

> prevent it from

> being oxidized but I know of no reason to think it should

> be taken on an

> empty stomach.

It was long claimed that the acetylation of cysteine to NAC

was itself sufficient to prevent oxidative loss of the

sulfhydryl group or oxidative conversion to acetyl-cystine.

> LEF's Life Extension Mix contains 600 mg

> of NAC and about 2.5

> grams of vitamin C.

Pearson & Shaw documented that 2:1 ascorbate to cysteine is

sufficient.

>

> The key point is that the rabbit cornea cells suffered

> less damage from

> cigarette smoke when they were treated with NAC. It's

> interesting that NAC

> appears to be helpful both to smokers and drinkers.

> Someone ought to sell

> NAC supplements in bars.

Perhaps NAC eye-drops. Since the cornea study was in-vitro,

it neither made nor supported the claim that oral

administration of NAC at any dosage could achieve the levels

present in their culture medium. Neither did it claim or

support the claim that non-acetylated cysteine would not

yield the same result since they did no such comparison.

> LEF sells a product for use by alcohol drinkers called

> " Anti-Alcohol

> Antioxidants " , designed to lessen the deleterious effects

> of alcohol. I am

> currently acting as a consultant to a company in the

> process of developing a

> similar product. My advice to them is to use NAC rather

> than cysteine. NAC

> appears to confer the same benefits as cysteine with

> respect to its ability

> to bind and reduce acetaldehyde from ethanol metabolism,

> but without the

> excitotoxicity problem of cysteine. Also NAC appears

> superior to cysteine

> with respect to its ability to enhance production of

> glutathione.

Do I detect a motive for the NAC claims. Can you say

" product differentiation " . Good! I knew you could.

> I think LEF was

> short-sighted in their attempt to conform to the exact

> formula used in that

> animal research. NAC should be safer and more effective.

When LEF has an actual in-vivo study, they base their dosage

recommendations on it. That is empirical! Second-guessing

the in-vivo with " should be " statements is faith-based.

Bob Cruder

June 19, 2001

Hello Bob,

Thanks for the always well researched and thought out posts.

Just a curiosity, do you take supplements? Would you be willing to tell us

which ones and in what quantities?

Thanks again

MM

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

June 19, 2001

Bob I believe this abstract below is the same one you posted in defense of

your notion that n-acetyl-cysteine (NAC) is excitotoxic. Your argument is

that acylases are ubiquitous and therefore NAC is easily and rapidly

de-acetylated to make excitotoxic cysteine, and that therefore NAC is

similar to cysteine in its potential to cause exitotoxic nerve damage.

However if you read the abstract carefully you will note that, as per the

second sentence, it is CYTOSOLIC acylase that acts upon NAC. " Cytosolic " is

used as an adjective here to inform the reader that the enzyme is present

and acts on NAC in the cytoplasm, i.e., in the fluid present in the INTERIOR

of the cell.

NAC is thereby converted to cysteine INSIDE the cell, whereupon it becomes a

substrate in the synthesis of glutathione.

Cysteine present inside the cell cannot cause excitotoxicity! Excitoxicity

is always caused by *extracellular* agents, namely excitatory amino acids

(EAA's), that exist in the extracellular space between neurons. The EAA's

bind to receptors on the exterior surface of nerve cells. This binding opens

a calcium channel through which calcium ions flow into the cell, causing the

cell to fire. Excitotoxicity results when excessive flow of calcium ions

from excessive excitation of these exterior receptors causes the cell to

fire excessively. But cysteine present in the cytoplasm as a result of

acylase acting on NAC inside the cell cannot bind to receptors on the

exterior surface of the cell! It is physically impossible for cytosolic

cysteine to activate the exterior receptors. Your argument therefore fails.

ABSTRACT:

Immunohistohemical localization of the acylases that catalyze the

deacetylation of N-acetyl-L-cysteine and haloalkene-derived mercapturates.

Uttamsingh V, Baggs RB, Krenitsky DM, Anders MW.

Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, University of Rochester Medical

Center, Rochester, New York, USA.

Acylases catalyze the hydrolysis of a range of S-substituted

N-acetyl-L-cysteines. The hydrolysis of N-acetyl-L-cysteine is catalyzed by

cytosolic acylase I, and activity is present in human endothelial cells and

rat lung, intestinal, and liver homogenates. Many haloalkenes are

metabolized to mercapturates, which also undergo acylase-catalyzed

hydrolysis. The acylases that catalyze the deacetylation of

N-acetyl-L-cysteine and several haloalkene-derived mercapturates have been

recently identified: acylase I catalyzes the deacetylation of

N-acetyl-L-cysteine and some haloalkene-derived mercapturates whereas an

acylase purified from rat kidney cytosol catalyzes the deacetylation of a

distinct set of substrates, including several haloalkene-derived

mercapturates. The objective of these studies was to examine the tissue and

subcellular localization of acylase I and purified rat kidney acylase.

Immunoblotting showed the presence of immunoreactive acylase I and purified

rat kidney acylase in rat kidney, liver, lung, and brain. Both acylases were

identified by immunohistochemistry in several rat organs, including kidney,

liver, lung, brain, stomach, intestines, adrenals, pancreas, and testis,

indicating that acylase activity is widespread in rat tissues.

PMID: 10820133 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

June 20, 2001

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 05:02:18 -0400

" gts " <gts@...> wrote:

> Bob I believe this abstract below is the same one you

> posted in defense of

> your notion that n-acetyl-cysteine (NAC) is excitotoxic.

> Your argument is

> that acylases are ubiquitous and therefore NAC is easily

> and rapidly

> de-acetylated to make excitotoxic cysteine, and that

> therefore NAC is

> similar to cysteine in its potential to cause exitotoxic

> nerve damage.

>

> However if you read the abstract carefully you will note

> that, as per the

> second sentence, it is CYTOSOLIC acylase that acts upon

> NAC. " Cytosolic " is

> used as an adjective here to inform the reader that the

> enzyme is present

> and acts on NAC in the cytoplasm, i.e., in the fluid

> present in the INTERIOR

> of the cell.

You are playing word games again. I'm well aware of the

limitations of the above-referenced in-vitro study. It does

not represent in-vivo conditions exactly because it was a

neuron-only preparation to which the NAC was directly

applied.

If the NAC has encountered some other cell BEFORE the

neuron, it would likely have become de-acetylated.

In-vivo, the NAC encounters several layers of cells in the

intestinal lining that must bucket-brigade it to the portal

circulation which in turn presents it to hepatocytes before

it reaches the general circulation which must then present

it to the cells in the blood-brain barrier. Once it is in

the brain, it encounters glial cells that largely enwrap the

neurons.

I don't really care how neurons react to either directly

applied NAC or cysteine unless the experimental situation

can be shown to represent what is at least possible in-vivo.

That study, while interesting and worthy of mention to this

forum, failed to achieve that last link.

Bob Cruder

June 20, 2001

> You are playing word games again.

No Bob, just pointing out the glaring flaw in your theory.

Your theory that NAC is excitotoxic is unsound for reasons cited. And even

if this were not so there is still not one shred of empirical evidence to

support it.

In fact NAC promotes synthesis of glutathione in the cell, which helps to

protect against the free-radicals that result from true excitotoxins.

-gts

June 21, 2001

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:44:46 -0400

" gts " <gts@...> wrote:

> > You are playing word games again.

>

> No Bob, just pointing out the glaring flaw in your

> theory.

>

> Your theory that NAC is excitotoxic is unsound for

> reasons cited.

There is no point continuing this discussion. For the

record, I never stated that NAC is excitotoxic. I never even

stated that cysteine was excitotoxic in-vivo in spite of an

in-vitro result.

I argued repeatedly that no evidence had been presented for

differential effects of NAC vs. cysteine in-vivo because of

the ubiquity of enzymes that interconvert the two in the

multiple cell types through which either substance must pass

before encountering neurons.

You presented no evidence supporting your claim that either

ingested NAC or cysteine are transported to neurons without

being interconverted, that an in-vivo concentration of

either substance proximal to the neuron (similar to the

conditions present in the in-vitro studies) could be

expected or that a differential in-vivo effect would result.

You appear to have an emotional (or perhaps economic) reason

to ascribe in-vivo protective effects to NAC that go well

beyond the peer-reviewed research.

Our readers may interpret your future posts with that in

mind.

Bob Cruder

June 22, 2001

> You appear to have an emotional (or perhaps economic) reason

> to ascribe in-vivo protective effects to NAC that go well

> beyond the peer-reviewed research.

>

> Our readers may interpret your future posts with that in

> mind.

Such rot, Bob! Your repeated attempts to cast aspersions on my character

would appear to be only a reflection of your own insecurity and

unwillingness to admit error. You made the same asinine accusation against

Dr. Blaylock, M.D., a respected neurosurgeon whose authoritative

book on excitotoxins directly contradicts you. Dr. Blaylock states

explicitly that n-acetyl-cysteine (NAC) supplements are safe with respect to

excitotoxic activity. I quoted his work verbatim here. But rather than

concede that a trained neurosurgeon ought to know more than you about

neurology, you instead suggested that the doctor must have a commercial

interest in the sale of NAC!

Do you really think you know more about the human brain than a brain

surgeon, Bob? Such arrogance I've never seen.

As Blaylock explains, excitotoxic damage is caused ultimately by free

radicals generated inside neurons in large quantities in response to the

excessive inflow of calcium ions. Glutathione is a natural anti-oxidant; it

helps to prevent excitotoxic damage by neutralizing those free-radicals.

Cysteine is a component of glutathione, and NAC via is enzymatic conversion

to cysteine in the cell is a means of delivering cysteine to the interior of

cells for synthesis of glutathione without exposing the external receptors

to the dangers of cysteine's excitotoxic metabolites.

You do a disservice to readers by causing them to suspect or fear

excitotoxic dangers from NAC. In reality NAC is an ally in the battle

against excitotoxins. NAC scavenges the dangerous hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)

radical and also enhances glutathione levels.

I've included two abstracts below:

The first is research which shows a protective antioxidant effect of NAC on

motor neurons in mice. Neuron loss was reduced in mice treated with oral NAC

supplementation. They also showed higher levels of glutathione peroxidase.

It's noteworthy that this mouse model is similar to ALS, a disease in which

neurons are destroyed by the oxidative damage that results directly from

excitotoxicity. If NAC is not safe with respect to excitotoxicity, Bob, then

why do you suppose NAC extends the life of neurons in this mouse model?

The second is discussion of NAC as a precursor to intracellular glutathione

that shows promise in the prevention of lung cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Reduction of lower motor neuron degeneration in wobbler mice by

N-acetyl-L-cysteine

Journal of Neuroscience (USA), 1996, 16/23 (7574-7582)

The murine mutant wobbler is a model of lower motoneuron degeneration with

associated skeletal muscle atrophy. This mutation most closely resembles

Werdnig-Hofmann disease in humans and shares some of the clinical features

of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). It has been suggested that reactive

oxygen species (ROS) may play a role in the pathogenesis of disorders such

as ALS. To examine the relationship between ROS and neural degeneration, we

have studied the effects of agents such as N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC), which

reduce free radical damage. Litters of wobbler mice were given a 1% solution

of the glutathione precursor NAC in their drinking water for a period of 9

weeks. Functional and neuroanatomical examination of these animals revealed

that wobbler mice treated with NAC exhibited (1) a significant reduction in

motor neuron loss and elevated glutathione peroxidase levels within the

cervical spinal cord, (2) increased axon caliber in the medial facial nerve,

(3) increased muscle mass and muscle fiber area in the triceps and flexor

carpi ulnaris muscles, and (4) increased functional efficiency of the

forelimbs, as compared with untreated wobbler littermates. These data

suggest that reactive oxygen species may be involved in the degeneration of

motor neurons in wobbler mice and demonstrate that oral administration of

NAC effectively reduces the degree of motor degeneration in wobbler mice.

This treatment thus may be applicable in the treatment of other lower motor

neuropathies.

ABSTRACT:

" N-Acetylcysteine for Lung Cancer Prevention "

Nico Chest May 1995;107(5):1437-1441.

In 1981 it was estimated by Doll and Peto that of all cancer deaths in the

United States 30% were due to tobacco, 3% to alcohol and 35% to diet and

other causes. Twelve percent of lung cancers were not attributable to

tobacco and dietary factors were implicated in the causation of cancer in

tissues other than the gastrointestinal tract. Damage to cellular DNA not

only occurs from environmental mutagens but also from the endogenous

production of oxidants which damage DNA and other mechanisms related to the

conversion of food, in particular fats to energy. Inflammation and the

healing process can also result in damage. Dietary antioxidants have also

been shown to prevent this oxidative cellular DNA damage; these include

vitamin A, the carotene family, vitamin C, E and selenium. In reviewing

approximately 200 published studies there was overwhelming evidence that the

consumption of fruit and vegetables is associated with reduced cancer

incidence. Cigarette smoke contains oxidants as well as several

precarcinogens. Metabolism of carcinogens and the steps of carcinogenesis

are a balance between forces such as metabolic activation and

detoxification, formation and scavenging of radicals and DNA damage and

repair. This suggests that carcinogenic compounds can initiate tumor growth

only when they saturate detoxification pathways. Glutathione plays a role in

the detoxification of xenobiotics. N-acetylcysteine which is an amino thiol

and precursor of intracellular cysteine and glutathione has been shown not

only to be an efficient antidote in acetaminophen poisoning but also has

important chemopreventive properties. N-acetylcysteine appears to exert its

chemopreventive effects by multiple mechanisms and may provide protection

against different mutagens and carcinogens in different stages of

carcinogenesis. N-acetylcysteine has reached the Phase III trial stage in

chemoprevention in Europe and has been used in clinical practice for more

than 30 years. In large groups of patients with chronic obstructive lung

disease N- acetylcysteine has turned out to be a safe agent with minor

effects even when prescribed for a prolonged period of time. N-

acetylcysteine is well tolerated when taken continuously in a dose of 600 mg

per day. Dyspepsia has been reported as a mild side effect. N-acetylcysteine

holds promise and it may turn out to be effective in preventing secondary

tumors. It may have a wider use in chemopreventive purposes.

-gts

May 2, 2004

Hi, my cfids md is very cautious about the use of nac due to toxicity

issues but they also tend to be conservative.tealk

> [Original Message]

> From: melillo3 <melillo3@...>

> < >

> Date: 5/2/2004 2:04:36 PM

> Subject: Re: virus inhibition

>

> > N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is said to inhibit viruses

> > by stimulating production of immune peptide hormones and is more

> > potent when combined with vitamin C and glutathione (GSH)

> > [Lieberman]..

>

> In past lectures of Dr. Cheney, he felt NAC was not a good way to

> raise glutathione levels, he felt NAC may be toxic. He preferred

> using whey protein in place of NAC becauee it worked much better.

>

> Maybe new brands of NAC work better now as these comments of Dr.

> Cheney are now several years old.

>

> Al

>

> This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with

each other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any

treatment discussed here, please consult your doctor.

>

February 27, 2007

Hi where is the best place to buy this?

>>BioCare keep it - or use the TA 25% mebers discoutn ayt the Nutricentre - they sell Biocare there also as well as other brands - Kirkman do one too

Mandi x

December 10, 2007

Sorry about my post on NAC. When I read it this morning...it seemed quite

disjointed. (either through the transmission, my scatter brain or both).

Counterindicated, should have been contraindicated. Here is one of the web sites

I

found that explains it much better. When we copy and paste some of the content

does not copy well. I meant to link my post to this web site:

_N-Acetyl Cysteine (NAC) - Supplements_

(http://www.supplementwatch.com/suplib/supplement.asp?DocId=1199)

**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest

products.

(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)

May 10, 2008

>

> Hi all. I started taking some NAC recently because I was concerned

> about my liver due to the amount of tylenol that I have been taking

> since I have stopped taking prescription pain meds.

>

> I have noticed that I feel a lot better. I do not have any

fillings

> in my teeth, so I guess the NAC is working on glutathione??

>

> Anyone have any input? Will the benefit last or is it just a short

> term thing, etc. TIA,

>

> Mike C

>

Hi Mike,

Not sure if you remember me. I think it would be long lasting. It

is a GSH precursor so that may be the effect you are experiencing.

Also it could be reducing your glutamate or prodding your methionine

pathways both of which would make you feel better in various ways.

I can't even take 600mg because I get the Cpn reaction as recently

posted by Capn Black so I would also say, that perhaps you don't

have Cpn. (He mentions large doses but I get a reaction 600mg once

a day) Good to find out what we DON't have....

I am surprised you are taking Tylenol - it has such a dark side. I

undertand not wanting to take narcotics.

I am taking Tramadol and while it is a narcotic, it is an atypical

opiod. I do not get sedated, (actually, I can't take it close to

bedtime as it keeps me awake).

Anway, we are all different so it may not work for you. I am sure

your Doc is monitoring your liver. There are also many things to

protect our livers - milk thistle isn't the only one but my mind is

drawing a blank.

Marti

Houston Texas

May 10, 2008

Of course I remember you. I think we talked on the phone re the

ImmunePro distribution thing about 7 years ago.

Thanks for the info., but what is the Cpn reaction? I am trying to

quit the tylenol, btw.

Mike

> >

> > Hi all. I started taking some NAC recently because I was

concerned

> > about my liver due to the amount of tylenol that I have been

taking

> > since I have stopped taking prescription pain meds.

> >

> > I have noticed that I feel a lot better. I do not have any

> fillings

> > in my teeth, so I guess the NAC is working on glutathione??

> >

> > Anyone have any input? Will the benefit last or is it just a

short

> > term thing, etc. TIA,

> >

> > Mike C

> >

>

> Hi Mike,

> Not sure if you remember me. I think it would be long lasting. It

> is a GSH precursor so that may be the effect you are experiencing.

> Also it could be reducing your glutamate or prodding your

methionine

> pathways both of which would make you feel better in various ways.

>

> I can't even take 600mg because I get the Cpn reaction as recently

> posted by Capn Black so I would also say, that perhaps you don't

> have Cpn.

May 10, 2008

>

> Of course I remember you. I think we talked on the phone re the

> ImmunePro distribution thing about 7 years ago.

>

> Thanks for the info., but what is the Cpn reaction? I am trying to

> quit the tylenol, btw.

>

> Mike

>

Right, that was me. I am back, this time I am staying on the list

as my relaspe is a different animal than my first onset. Good to

see you on the list. So much changes that it was too hard to come

and go. Seems like the list is so much smaller. Very few names I

recognize. I remember when there used to be 2500 messages a month

and now it is about 250.

Cpn is Chlamydia Pneumonia. I have not been tested for this but I

discovered it on my own and through this list.

I decided to try some new supplements but I started several at one

time (again!) and I took NAC, TMG and methionine. (I had taken NAC

before but did not experience any effects).

Anyway, I was taking these three and I would wake up 2-3 hours after

taking it with what I called a " blooming event " . I thought it was

viral but it wasn't. I would wake with elevated fever, itchy skin

particularly around my throat and upper chest. I would be wide

awake and my skin would be flushed - press thumb and leave white

print (like a ruddy complexion which I do not have). Slight, slick

sore throat. Overall flu-ish like.

I finally stopped these three and then much later, Capn Black

mentioned this " test " and I had an AHA! moment. So now I can take

methionine and TMG with no issues. I have not had this " blooming "

since my last dose of NAC.

Perhaps Cpn was a factor in my relapse because I was not this sick

the first go around. Not sure. I am not an antiobiotics-advocate

so I am not sure what I am going to do about it. I have Flagyl and

can get the antiobiotics without a Dr.'s prescription but my theory

in the past has been that I can take ABX for however long and be

squeaky clean until I walk down the mall and someone sneezes in my

face and I have caught something AGAIN. Maybe I am too protective

of my gut flora which I struggle to keep healthy that I am unwilling

to wipe it out. But having said all that, the long term antibiotic

protocol seems to be less severe than the mycoplasma protocol of

years past. Not sure if they have changed that any.

All the best,

Marti

http://www.cpnhelp.org/handbookintro

" Chlamydia Pneumoniae (Cpn) is a tiny bacterium which is most often

noted for causing a form of pneumonia. Up until the 1970's it was

not even isolated and was mistaken for a virus (its discovery is an

interesting story and can be found here:

http://www.washington.edu/research/pathbreakers/1989a.html).

It was not until 1989 that J. Grayston and his associates

named it as a separate species of the Chlamydiae. Cpn is very

difficult to culture and so, without modern lab techniques, also to

study. It is an intracellulari bacterium, which means that it

invades the body cells, and it is an obligate parasite, which means

that it cannot supply it's own energy source and so takes over the

energy machinery of the body cells it invades, depleting them and

leaving the host cell less functional. "

May 10, 2008

I would say that if your white blood cell count IS NOT low, or

even high, then you might have a bacterial infection and abx could

work-you can restore your gut flora later. On the other hand, if

you have low WBC count, my opinion is that you have a chronic viral

infection in which case abx would be of no use.

Who is Capn Black? BTW, I haven't taken abx in about 3 years and

my gut problems seem to be getting better. I have gained about 10

pounds, up to 128 now (5 foot, 9 " ).

Mike C

>

> Perhaps Cpn was a factor in my relapse because I was not this sick

> the first go around. Not sure. I am not an antiobiotics-advocate

> so I am not sure what I am going to do about it. I have Flagyl and

> can get the antiobiotics without a Dr.'s prescription but my theory

> in the past has been that I can take ABX for however long and be

> squeaky clean until I walk down the mall and someone sneezes in my

> face and I have caught something AGAIN. Maybe I am too protective

> of my gut flora which I struggle to keep healthy that I am

unwilling

> to wipe it out. But having said all that, the long term antibiotic

> protocol seems to be less severe than the mycoplasma protocol of

> years past. Not sure if they have changed that any.

>

> All the best,

> Marti

May 11, 2008

Marti,

The CPn CAP recommend building up NAC slowly until you are taking

1600mg twice per day. Some people take quite a while to build up to

this because of the flu reactions when taking it. It all depends on

how much of the EB spore form of CPn you have swiming around

extracellular in your blood.

Mark Hall

> I can't even take 600mg because I get the Cpn reaction as recently

> posted by Capn Black so I would also say, that perhaps you don't

> have Cpn. (He mentions large doses but I get a reaction 600mg once

> a day) Good to find out what we DON't have....

>

> Marti

> Houston Texas

>

May 11, 2008

Hi Marti,

A few points to make here:-

1) If you do go on the CPn CAP, as well as taking NAC to get rid of

the EB spores, and pulsing Flagyl (5 days every 3 weeks) to kill the

cryptic form, you must take 2 bacteriostatics like Doxy and Azith to

fight the bug in it's RB form.

2) It is true that even after being on the protocol for up to 5

years, you have gotten rid of CPn and stop all the abx and

supplements, which you should. - you may catch it again (bearing in

mind that by the age of 60, most people have caught CPn at some point

in time.) The experts say that as long as you continue to take

2400mg NAC daily, if you get infected again and it ventures past your

lungs into your blood supply - it will not survive.

3) Taking probiotics is a must on this protocol to replenish any gut

bacteria that are destroyed by the antibiotics. If you have problems

with candida, there are preventative supplements that are good for

this.

This is a list of the supplements recommended.

http://www.cpnhelp.org/publicimages/allsupplementschart.html