MediTest
Has there been any discussion of this recent article here? I can't locate any. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29521616 Excerpt: "NAC treatment resulted in approximately sixfold more efficient C. pneumoniae growth in tissue culture compared to the untreated control cells, and this effect was shown to be based on the increased binding of the bacterium to the host cells." I purchased some NAC with the intention of dissolving it in DMSO to take. I checked to see if there is anything new on NAC and located this article. It doesn't exactly commend the use of NAC, though it's just one study. Thoughts?

Yes, as a matter of fact, it wasn't too long ago that this was discussed. It was fairly debunked, as I recall, but I can't search for anything right now, since I'm out the door to meet someone. If no one posts a response, I'll hunt for the discussion tonight or tomorrow.

The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems. Mohandas Gandhi

OK cheers MacKintosh. Seems unlikely it would be 'debunked' if the reviewers of the journal published it. Still I'm interested in any perspectives.

Since these researchers are talking about pneumonia, they must also be talking about elementary bodies of cpn, rather than the more advanced stages of chronic infection. Elementary bodies are the sole cause of a new infection and are therefore the cause of walking pneumonia..

Although I finished the antibiotics years and years ago, I still take NAC regularly to ward off any new infection and so does David, who, as an expert microbiologically, was one of the first people to advise taking NAC as part of the treatment of a cpn infection.

We both have recently had our first viral cold for about fifteen years and we both increased our intake of NAC because of its mucolytic properties. Now, you can't tell me that maybe I have gone for over fifteen years without coming across an elementary body of cpn, so I guess that taking NAC regularly has worked for me in more ways than one, both virally and bacterially.

Completed Stratton/Wheldon regime for aggressive secondary progressive MS in June 2007, after four years, three of which intermittent.   Still improving bit by bit and no relapses since finishing treatment.

Hi Sarah! ☺️ I presume that you didn't actually mean that Elementary Bodies can replicate themselves? My understanding has always been that EBs are produced / replicated by Reticular Bodies hosted within an infected cell. ? G.

“Don't believe everything you read on the internet.”

―    Abraham Lincoln

Hi Glenn: Elementary bodies are the first stage of the lifecycle and are the only infectious stage. When you have what you think is a cold, it might well be a cpn infection. It is the only extracellular stage, is the only stage able to start a new infection but is unable to replicate. These individual bodies are quite short-lived and live solely outside the cell. I maybe should have expressed myself better the first time!
Completed Stratton/Wheldon regime for aggressive secondary progressive MS in June 2007, after four years, three of which intermittent.   Still improving bit by bit and no relapses since finishing treatment.

Hi Sarah, To repeat the excerpt: "NAC treatment resulted in approximately sixfold more efficient C. pneumoniae growth in tissue culture compared to the untreated control cells, and this effect was shown to be based on the increased binding of the bacterium to the host cells." My recollection is that the rationale for NAC was a theoretical one without direct tests that confirmed it. This paper presents a direct empirical test, the results of which do not indicate NAC is doing what you think it does. Because I am a professional researcher, I know it's not a good idea to jump to conclusions from one paper. However, as far as I can see the results contradict the hypothesis that NAC is beneficial. Your taking NAC for years is not evidence unless you clearly documented control and manipulation of relevant variables, and even then, results may not generalize to others. I will steer away from NAC. I just don't see the evidence and this casts doubt. Let's see if there are further studies.

Fair enough Steveh, because unlike the antibiotics, NAC is not an essential part of the antibiotic protocol. So if you don't want to take it, don't. To my mind, my taking the stuff and reporting the result if far more of an empirical test than laboratory tests on inbred mice, in a country not renowned for it's medical excellence. I would be the first person to say though, that you can't just go by how I feel. On the other hand, the fact that not only has my multiple sclerosis but my adult onset asthma been wiped out by the CAP protocol and a regular taking of NAC afterwards, must have more than a smidgen of use in reporting the fact: more so since I am a human and not a mouse.

Completed Stratton/Wheldon regime for aggressive secondary progressive MS in June 2007, after four years, three of which intermittent.   Still improving bit by bit and no relapses since finishing treatment.

Taking things is an empirical test if you're fastidious. I wouldn't call it direct though: it's not as though culture is analysed. When I take things, I set up a log of everything that is constant and changed and record outcomes (such as die-off and change in symptoms). This gives me a chance of working out what is having a given effect, or not having an effect. It's painstaking but can be worthwhile. Unlike the reports I see from quite a few, I experienced no discernible effect from NAC (positive or negative) but die-off from the first antibiotic I took within I think 48-72 hrs of taking it. Empirical tests are only fruitful if variables are controlled and manipulated and outcomes recorded. That's scientific observation of course. I'd prefer a carefully undertaken study in humans than mice; but I'd prefer a carefully controlled study in a mouse than no controlled study. It is what it is. A single paper involving mice needs to be kept in perspective, but given I have not observed any response to NAC and this study indicates increased replication of Cpn in mammalian cells with NAC, the choice is pretty simple for me personally. If I had clear effects from NAC like some others, it could be a different matter. Thanks for your replies anyhow, Sarah.

I think this is actually a different study than the one we looked at before. If memory serves, that one came out before 2018, was just cell culture, and introduced NAC only right at the moment the EB was getting internalized, which is the best possible moment from the EB's point of view since that's when it needs its shell broken up. This study did some cell culture, but also used live mice. And while it's recommending an alternative mucolytic drug (Ambroxol), that drug is old and off-patent, so there is no huge pool of money to be suspicious of.

Steveh, the only result I got from taking the full dose of NAC was a slightly runny nose though nothing more. Not surprising due to the mucolytic properties: you must surely have got a slightly runny nose?
Completed Stratton/Wheldon regime for aggressive secondary progressive MS in June 2007, after four years, three of which intermittent.   Still improving bit by bit and no relapses since finishing treatment.

Sarah, I didn't record anything from NAC so if I got a runny nose, it would have been slight or unnoticeable with background factors (I used to get allergies and nasal congestion).

Used to? Why don't you get them now?
Completed Stratton/Wheldon regime for aggressive secondary progressive MS in June 2007, after four years, three of which intermittent.   Still improving bit by bit and no relapses since finishing treatment.

Steveh, David is not concerned about this fact, if true, because in his research he found that antibiotics work best against actively growing bacteria, so with cpn treatment the antibiotics would be well able to cope with whatever NAC throws at them.

Completed Stratton/Wheldon regime for aggressive secondary progressive MS in June 2007, after four years, three of which intermittent.   Still improving bit by bit and no relapses since finishing treatment.

OK, I actually thought the justification for NAC was along the lines of making Cpn more susceptible. So that doesn't surprise me. But I've been recently trying to identify what might work best with DMSO to target infection because I am symptomatic in the larynx/throat the most. DMSO can locally penetrate and open cells for agents to penetrate. NAC doesn't fit the bill for this specific purpose. (If people don't know about DMSO, obviously don't use it--I've done a great deal of research into DMSO).

Here is the original NAC thread:

http://cpnhelp.org/comment/90246

Completed Stratton/Wheldon regime for aggressive secondary progressive MS in June 2007, after four years, three of which intermittent.   Still improving bit by bit and no relapses since finishing treatment.