NAC Alone in a War of Attrition
I remember reading somewhere on one of the boards on this site a question posed by a memeber who asked if just taking the NACi without the antibiotics could do the job. The member's thinking was that if we burst the EB's before they infect another cell we will win a war of attrition against CPni. As our body's cells naturally die, they expell the CPn into the bloodstream, whereupon the NAC kills them. The counterargument is that some cells live a very long time, or last our entire lives, i.e. nerves cells, cardiac muscle cells, etc. For this reason, we must use the abxi in order to kill the CPn hiding out in these cells.
So here is my counter to the counterargument: what if the CPn is in a long-lived cell that we don't want to die with the CPn? In my case, the diagnosis is occular sarcoidosis. I have also tested positive for CPn. The damage to my retina in my right has been extensive due to inflammationi. Being composed of highly specialized nerve cells, the retina will not repair itself; these cells do not reproduce.
I have been taking NAC and other supplementsi with noticable improvement overall (but not to my vision, of course, although I can wish!). I am still trying to convice my doctor about the abxi as he says everyone tests positive for CPn so its not a big deal.
But... If I were to begin taking the abx, I could further damage my vision as retinal cells die along with the CPn. Why not skip the abx, destory the CPn elsewhere in my body over time with the NAC and allow the CPn to remain dormant in my retinal cells. In the trade off between killing 100% of the CPn or protecting my vision, I would have to side with my vision.
By denying the CPn both its ability to travel with the NAC and its affinity for inflammation with anti-inflammatories, I could take out 95% of it and lock up the the remaining 5%.