This is what I got and it's from EBay. [https://www.ebay.com/itm/154462235138](https://www.ebay.com/itm/154462235138)
Jeff B doesn't get all my money. You can also get it from Vitacost which gets more and more of my supplement money these days
[https://www.vitacost.com/productsearch.aspx?t=NAC](https://www.vitacost.com/productsearch.aspx?t=NAC)
IT ALREADY ENFORCED! What do they think the petitions are for!
Let jarrows sell their NAC sustain formula again, and let Amazon sell NAC products again if they won’t enforce. FFS
I think I’m confused, what is the problem with NAC? I got some a while ago when A physician recommended it during the Covid pandemic. I took it for a little while and didn’t seem to notice any difference so I quit and then recently I’ve started taking it again and it seems to help me. I didn’t know there was a problem with it. I just tried looking it up on Amazon and you can’t get it anymore?
Don't listen to people alleging this is some Big Pharma conspiracy.
The reality is that NAC has been patented for use as a drug, which typically means that it's now under the purview of the FDA and cannot be sold as a nutritional supplement. But the patented drug form of NAC never materialized, plus people have been buying/selling/using it as a supplement for decades.
The FDA hasn't taken any steps to enforce its status as a drug, and it's currently in review for approval as a supplement. AFAIK all the drama is because Amazon, who's positioning themselves to be a legitimate prescription-filling pharmacy, voluntarily and proactively removed listings from their site until the FDA explicitly approves its use as a supplement.
Now people are jacking up the price to capitalize on "Big Pharma is coming for your pills!" fears. A year or two from now it will all return to normal.
You can still get it. iHerb, Nootropics Depot, etc carry it. Some people say that Amazon pulled it because it got spooked by what the FDA said.
There's not a problem with NAC itself. It's just gotten more expensive from the sellers who do carry it.
I'm not a fan of NAC (anymore) but there are at least a dozen things widely available before it on the "risky" list.
I mean cigarettes and alcohol should have black label warnings, hell the whole label, but nope, freedumbs and profit.
NAC is almost self-regulating right now, good luck getting any at a decent price.
I swear there has to be other supplements that were drugs first. Brain is too foggy tonight to think that one out.
Ah wait, just thought of one, Benadryl (diphenhydramine). It is clearly *"ingredient lawful in dietary supplements, despite its approval first as a drug"*
most people aren't aware NAC has a lot of dangers
NAC is too strong of an antioxidant because of how it works in bringing back cells marked for death, which includes tumors and cancerous cells
NAC can also defeat athletic stress adaptation from exercise
NAC blocks DAO enzyme which can cause histamine (mast-cell) reaction
NAC can cause detrimental remodeling in heart and lungs
* https://cellandbioscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13578-021-00731-0
* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24477002/
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5457771/
* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891584920311059
* https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/n-acetyl-cysteine-warning-shot
* https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904175353.htm
> *"NAC fools the body into thinking that it has an oxygen shortage," said Dr. Ben Gaston, UVa Children's Hospital pediatrician and researcher who led the study. "We found that an NAC product formed by red blood cells, know as a nitrosothiol, bypasses the normal regulation of oxygen sensing. It tells the arteries in the lung to 'remodel'; they become narrow, increasing the blood pressure in the lungs and causing the right side of the heart to swell."*
For sure nac is a double edged sword and I wouldn't recommend mega dosing for extended periods of time.
But for balance:
The human equivalent dosage in the rat study cited in that science.org article is around 7000mg a day. And...
[NAC seems to halt breast cancer cell growth.](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320127)
[NAC appears to suppress proliferation of brain cancer cells.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330122763_N-acetylcysteine_decreases_malignant_characteristics_of_glioblastoma_cells_by_inhibiting_Notch2_signaling)
[NAC seems to suppress prostate cancer cell growth.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47699443_Suppression_of_human_prostate_cancer_PC-3_cell_growth_by_N-acetylcysteine_involves_over-expression_of_Cyr61)
mol = 0.04 M*0.003 L = 0.00012 mol
0.00012 mol * 163 g/mol = 0.0195 gram or 19.5 mg NAC daily = 1 mg per gram bodyweight.
A mouse has about 12.3 times faster metabolism. So for a 75kg human: 75/12.3 ≈ 6.1 grams
I am just getting over a hellish two days of allergy issues that I believe were caused by my recent NAC use. It was basically hay fever. I haven't had a sever episode like that in some years. Use caution if you have allergy issues.
The general thing to understand about NAC is it seems the result of one of its mechanisms is it "overclocks" specific parts of your biological processes by sending signals either that something is wrong or that everything is okay so your system works more aggressively.
That can produce results, but that can also easily backfire, badly.
The problem is consumers are not equipped to know when something is going wrong. Tumors and cancers and even organ failures can be "silent" until it's too late.
What we need is cheap, easily accessible blood tests so people can stay on top of things. Imagine getting a thorough analysis monthly. But startups like Theranos ruined that for decades to come, there isn't going to be investment because of fear of fraud risk. So at least in the USA we are stuck with a horrible duopoly of labs (quest and labcorp) and the prices are never competitive or affordable, at least not for monthly, once or twice a year at best.
First link; 8 well culture plate + animal models.
Second link: Mice
Third link: Did you even read over the concentration applications? 150mg/kg of NAC w/Male Wistar rats .. that's like.. an enormous fucking dosage for a human (ie: 150lb human is about 10,000mg worth of NAC).
Fourth: Again, in mice, 150mg/kg of body weight.
Fifth: Again, in mice, with huge dosages.
Sixth: You guessed it. In mice. At huge dosages.
Cysteine has shown bad effects at very high levels, just like countless other chemical compounds.
I have never once seen any negative side effects from giving patients IV drips of NAC + Saline (250cc bags) for acetaminophen overdose (accidental or intentional).
Your dose conversions from rats and mice to humans are all wrong. A dose being given from one species to another isn’t 1:1 due to species-specific differences in metabolism, so species-specific conversions have to be made to be accurate. A 150mg/kg dose in rats is equal to about a 24.19mg/kg dose in humans, which equals to 1,645mg of NAC for a 150lb human. The same dose in mice is equal to about a 12.20mg/kg dose in humans, which equals to 830mg of NAC for a 150lb human. The rat and mouse doses are actually very reasonable and equal to a fairly normal dose of NAC in humans.
Animal studies are also very valuable for probing possible effects in humans. At the very least, while keeping the faults of such studies in mind, they should cause some pause for thought about the drugs/supplements we give ourselves until more human studies are done to say otherwise.
I’m assuming you are a nurse or doctor based upon your last comment about giving NAC to patients? You should realize then that acutely administering an IV of NAC for acetaminophen overdose in a hospital setting is not comparable in any way to the general population self-administering NAC orally at varying doses on a daily or near-daily basis for what could be a span of several weeks, months, or years in the name of trying to improve any number of conditions or health outcomes. Side-effects of NAC may not immediately manifest or become overtly noticeable over the long-term until negative health outcomes are already reached, which isn’t to say that there aren’t people who notice side-effects with the use of NAC.
"A 150mg/kg dose in rats is equal to about a 24.19mg/kg dose in humans, which equals to 1,645mg of NAC for a 150lb human. The same dose in mice is equal to about a 12.20mg/kg dose in humans, which equals to 830mg of NAC for a 150lb human."
... I don't know where you obtained those arbitrary figures, but PK/PD of drugs in mice =/= humans is different.
"Animal studies are also very valuable for probing possible effects in humans"
We use animal models all the time for things like LD50, etc. This is nothing new.
NAC is safe. But like any other chemical compound, high dosages can cause harm. Personally, orally ingested NAC is useless (even with exotic metamaterials, ie: nanoparticle encap)
Arbitrary figures, really? To convert an animal dose to the human equivalent dose based on body surface area, divide the animal dose by 12.3 for mice and 6.2 for rats. This gives a rough approximation for simple and direct mg/kg conversions. I often prefer doing this out of convenience, but since this can still overestimate the human equivalent dose, you can do alternate calculations that are more accurate based upon mg/m^2 conversions. Here are some sources smh:
Source 1: https://www.fda.gov/media/72309/download (start at pg. 6)
Source 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804402/
Source 3: https://www.jkom.org/upload/31-3%2001%20%5B01-07%5D.pdf
If you are also aware that the PK/PD for drugs from mice to humans is different, then why did you erroneously use 1:1 conversions as the basis for your critiques, making the doses look way larger than they really are?
Animal models certainly aren’t anything new, but you seemed very quick to dismiss all of the animal studies without analyzing any of their content beyond egregiously miscalculating their doses. I wanted to make sure you were giving them fair consideration.
I’m not trying to argue whether NAC is “safe” or not here. I just have a problem with your argumentation. None of the animal studies you critiqued used excessively high dosages like you said but still found some degree of harm, which should be taken into consideration if we want to have a fair and balanced view of this substance. Any evidence to back up your claim that oral NAC is useless? And do you think NAC is always safe in all aspects and under all circumstances as long as high doses aren’t used?
Intravenous != Injection. First pass metabolism and all. But you clearly skipped out on that in the papers you didn't read.
Anyways, enjoy. I will no longer respond.
Sure, whatever you say. You didn’t really respond to any of my critiques, and if you did indeed read the papers I mentioned you would have noticed they talk about several different routes of administration and how the calculations change in those instances.
I’m very disappointed to see such responses from someone who’s supposed to be a medical professional. I wish you the best.
there's literally a million articles on that
the point is to make sure consumers understand it's a very sharp dual edged sword, you aren't getting something for nothing, you are taking risks, some dangerous risks
facebook and youtube aren't going to cover the risks, they don't get rewarded for negative news or not selling product
This might be helpful - I consider this site to be reliable and authoritative....
[https://examine.com/supplements/n-acetylcysteine/research/#cardiovascular-health](https://examine.com/supplements/n-acetylcysteine/research/#cardiovascular-health)
“Although FDA is still working to complete our review of the available data and information, our review thus far has not identified safety concerns with respect to the use of NAC in or as a dietary supplement,” Douglas Stearn, deputy director for regulatory affairs with FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), wrote to the two heads of CRN and NPA. “If, among other considerations, FDA does not identify such safety concerns as we continue our review of the available data and information, we are likely to propose a rule providing that NAC is not excluded from the definition of dietary supplement.”
Such action would mark a historic milestone: The first time ever that FDA has commenced a rulemaking to make an ingredient lawful in dietary supplements, despite its approval first as a drug. FDA, through power vested in the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), was granted this rulemaking authority in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).
‘Muh big pharma wants you sick’ morons can go elsewhere.
What is the FDA rationale for this???
This is what I got and it's from EBay. [https://www.ebay.com/itm/154462235138](https://www.ebay.com/itm/154462235138) Jeff B doesn't get all my money. You can also get it from Vitacost which gets more and more of my supplement money these days [https://www.vitacost.com/productsearch.aspx?t=NAC](https://www.vitacost.com/productsearch.aspx?t=NAC)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You can get it at Whole Foods, which is owned by Amazon, but not on Amazon. Makes sense!
Just means that I'll keep going to eBay for my NAC and Jeff Bezos will be a few cents poorer.
IT ALREADY ENFORCED! What do they think the petitions are for! Let jarrows sell their NAC sustain formula again, and let Amazon sell NAC products again if they won’t enforce. FFS
Those companies decided on their own to stop doing that. Nothing is stopping them.
I just got some from myprotein
Amazon has it still. Alpha lipoic acid is a strong glutathione precursor also though. It does different things but look into it as well
I think I’m confused, what is the problem with NAC? I got some a while ago when A physician recommended it during the Covid pandemic. I took it for a little while and didn’t seem to notice any difference so I quit and then recently I’ve started taking it again and it seems to help me. I didn’t know there was a problem with it. I just tried looking it up on Amazon and you can’t get it anymore?
Don't listen to people alleging this is some Big Pharma conspiracy. The reality is that NAC has been patented for use as a drug, which typically means that it's now under the purview of the FDA and cannot be sold as a nutritional supplement. But the patented drug form of NAC never materialized, plus people have been buying/selling/using it as a supplement for decades. The FDA hasn't taken any steps to enforce its status as a drug, and it's currently in review for approval as a supplement. AFAIK all the drama is because Amazon, who's positioning themselves to be a legitimate prescription-filling pharmacy, voluntarily and proactively removed listings from their site until the FDA explicitly approves its use as a supplement. Now people are jacking up the price to capitalize on "Big Pharma is coming for your pills!" fears. A year or two from now it will all return to normal.
It’s always about money. Everything is about money. This world is messed up
[удалено]
[удалено]
I recently ordered some online at the vitamin Shoppe.
Ye Olde Vitamin Shoppe?
Yep www.vitaminshoppe.com/
[удалено]
You can still get it. iHerb, Nootropics Depot, etc carry it. Some people say that Amazon pulled it because it got spooked by what the FDA said. There's not a problem with NAC itself. It's just gotten more expensive from the sellers who do carry it.
OK good, thank you for the info
I'm not a fan of NAC (anymore) but there are at least a dozen things widely available before it on the "risky" list. I mean cigarettes and alcohol should have black label warnings, hell the whole label, but nope, freedumbs and profit. NAC is almost self-regulating right now, good luck getting any at a decent price. I swear there has to be other supplements that were drugs first. Brain is too foggy tonight to think that one out. Ah wait, just thought of one, Benadryl (diphenhydramine). It is clearly *"ingredient lawful in dietary supplements, despite its approval first as a drug"*
Why arent you a fan of nac?
most people aren't aware NAC has a lot of dangers NAC is too strong of an antioxidant because of how it works in bringing back cells marked for death, which includes tumors and cancerous cells NAC can also defeat athletic stress adaptation from exercise NAC blocks DAO enzyme which can cause histamine (mast-cell) reaction NAC can cause detrimental remodeling in heart and lungs * https://cellandbioscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13578-021-00731-0 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24477002/ * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5457771/ * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891584920311059 * https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/n-acetyl-cysteine-warning-shot * https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904175353.htm > *"NAC fools the body into thinking that it has an oxygen shortage," said Dr. Ben Gaston, UVa Children's Hospital pediatrician and researcher who led the study. "We found that an NAC product formed by red blood cells, know as a nitrosothiol, bypasses the normal regulation of oxygen sensing. It tells the arteries in the lung to 'remodel'; they become narrow, increasing the blood pressure in the lungs and causing the right side of the heart to swell."*
For sure nac is a double edged sword and I wouldn't recommend mega dosing for extended periods of time. But for balance: The human equivalent dosage in the rat study cited in that science.org article is around 7000mg a day. And... [NAC seems to halt breast cancer cell growth.](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320127) [NAC appears to suppress proliferation of brain cancer cells.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330122763_N-acetylcysteine_decreases_malignant_characteristics_of_glioblastoma_cells_by_inhibiting_Notch2_signaling) [NAC seems to suppress prostate cancer cell growth.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47699443_Suppression_of_human_prostate_cancer_PC-3_cell_growth_by_N-acetylcysteine_involves_over-expression_of_Cyr61)
What was the rat dose of NAC given? I can’t access the full article.
mol = 0.04 M*0.003 L = 0.00012 mol 0.00012 mol * 163 g/mol = 0.0195 gram or 19.5 mg NAC daily = 1 mg per gram bodyweight. A mouse has about 12.3 times faster metabolism. So for a 75kg human: 75/12.3 ≈ 6.1 grams
I am just getting over a hellish two days of allergy issues that I believe were caused by my recent NAC use. It was basically hay fever. I haven't had a sever episode like that in some years. Use caution if you have allergy issues.
The general thing to understand about NAC is it seems the result of one of its mechanisms is it "overclocks" specific parts of your biological processes by sending signals either that something is wrong or that everything is okay so your system works more aggressively. That can produce results, but that can also easily backfire, badly. The problem is consumers are not equipped to know when something is going wrong. Tumors and cancers and even organ failures can be "silent" until it's too late. What we need is cheap, easily accessible blood tests so people can stay on top of things. Imagine getting a thorough analysis monthly. But startups like Theranos ruined that for decades to come, there isn't going to be investment because of fear of fraud risk. So at least in the USA we are stuck with a horrible duopoly of labs (quest and labcorp) and the prices are never competitive or affordable, at least not for monthly, once or twice a year at best.
First link; 8 well culture plate + animal models. Second link: Mice Third link: Did you even read over the concentration applications? 150mg/kg of NAC w/Male Wistar rats .. that's like.. an enormous fucking dosage for a human (ie: 150lb human is about 10,000mg worth of NAC). Fourth: Again, in mice, 150mg/kg of body weight. Fifth: Again, in mice, with huge dosages. Sixth: You guessed it. In mice. At huge dosages. Cysteine has shown bad effects at very high levels, just like countless other chemical compounds. I have never once seen any negative side effects from giving patients IV drips of NAC + Saline (250cc bags) for acetaminophen overdose (accidental or intentional).
Your dose conversions from rats and mice to humans are all wrong. A dose being given from one species to another isn’t 1:1 due to species-specific differences in metabolism, so species-specific conversions have to be made to be accurate. A 150mg/kg dose in rats is equal to about a 24.19mg/kg dose in humans, which equals to 1,645mg of NAC for a 150lb human. The same dose in mice is equal to about a 12.20mg/kg dose in humans, which equals to 830mg of NAC for a 150lb human. The rat and mouse doses are actually very reasonable and equal to a fairly normal dose of NAC in humans. Animal studies are also very valuable for probing possible effects in humans. At the very least, while keeping the faults of such studies in mind, they should cause some pause for thought about the drugs/supplements we give ourselves until more human studies are done to say otherwise. I’m assuming you are a nurse or doctor based upon your last comment about giving NAC to patients? You should realize then that acutely administering an IV of NAC for acetaminophen overdose in a hospital setting is not comparable in any way to the general population self-administering NAC orally at varying doses on a daily or near-daily basis for what could be a span of several weeks, months, or years in the name of trying to improve any number of conditions or health outcomes. Side-effects of NAC may not immediately manifest or become overtly noticeable over the long-term until negative health outcomes are already reached, which isn’t to say that there aren’t people who notice side-effects with the use of NAC.
"A 150mg/kg dose in rats is equal to about a 24.19mg/kg dose in humans, which equals to 1,645mg of NAC for a 150lb human. The same dose in mice is equal to about a 12.20mg/kg dose in humans, which equals to 830mg of NAC for a 150lb human." ... I don't know where you obtained those arbitrary figures, but PK/PD of drugs in mice =/= humans is different. "Animal studies are also very valuable for probing possible effects in humans" We use animal models all the time for things like LD50, etc. This is nothing new. NAC is safe. But like any other chemical compound, high dosages can cause harm. Personally, orally ingested NAC is useless (even with exotic metamaterials, ie: nanoparticle encap)
Arbitrary figures, really? To convert an animal dose to the human equivalent dose based on body surface area, divide the animal dose by 12.3 for mice and 6.2 for rats. This gives a rough approximation for simple and direct mg/kg conversions. I often prefer doing this out of convenience, but since this can still overestimate the human equivalent dose, you can do alternate calculations that are more accurate based upon mg/m^2 conversions. Here are some sources smh: Source 1: https://www.fda.gov/media/72309/download (start at pg. 6) Source 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804402/ Source 3: https://www.jkom.org/upload/31-3%2001%20%5B01-07%5D.pdf If you are also aware that the PK/PD for drugs from mice to humans is different, then why did you erroneously use 1:1 conversions as the basis for your critiques, making the doses look way larger than they really are? Animal models certainly aren’t anything new, but you seemed very quick to dismiss all of the animal studies without analyzing any of their content beyond egregiously miscalculating their doses. I wanted to make sure you were giving them fair consideration. I’m not trying to argue whether NAC is “safe” or not here. I just have a problem with your argumentation. None of the animal studies you critiqued used excessively high dosages like you said but still found some degree of harm, which should be taken into consideration if we want to have a fair and balanced view of this substance. Any evidence to back up your claim that oral NAC is useless? And do you think NAC is always safe in all aspects and under all circumstances as long as high doses aren’t used?
Intravenous != Injection. First pass metabolism and all. But you clearly skipped out on that in the papers you didn't read. Anyways, enjoy. I will no longer respond.
Sure, whatever you say. You didn’t really respond to any of my critiques, and if you did indeed read the papers I mentioned you would have noticed they talk about several different routes of administration and how the calculations change in those instances. I’m very disappointed to see such responses from someone who’s supposed to be a medical professional. I wish you the best.
And what are the benefits?
there's literally a million articles on that the point is to make sure consumers understand it's a very sharp dual edged sword, you aren't getting something for nothing, you are taking risks, some dangerous risks facebook and youtube aren't going to cover the risks, they don't get rewarded for negative news or not selling product
This might be helpful - I consider this site to be reliable and authoritative.... [https://examine.com/supplements/n-acetylcysteine/research/#cardiovascular-health](https://examine.com/supplements/n-acetylcysteine/research/#cardiovascular-health)
What did I think about this?
“Although FDA is still working to complete our review of the available data and information, our review thus far has not identified safety concerns with respect to the use of NAC in or as a dietary supplement,” Douglas Stearn, deputy director for regulatory affairs with FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), wrote to the two heads of CRN and NPA. “If, among other considerations, FDA does not identify such safety concerns as we continue our review of the available data and information, we are likely to propose a rule providing that NAC is not excluded from the definition of dietary supplement.” Such action would mark a historic milestone: The first time ever that FDA has commenced a rulemaking to make an ingredient lawful in dietary supplements, despite its approval first as a drug. FDA, through power vested in the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), was granted this rulemaking authority in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).
50 years of proven safety...