One likely explanation to me seems to be that there is low confidence in achieving results that prove the suggested “extremely huge” impact, and an inherent risk of being reduced to the efficiency level of chicken soup.
That sounds to me like you haven’t really thought about the case. NAC has a well validated effect for clinical practice and is a routine medication and running the study for what is essentially off-label use of NAC wouldn’t discourage the on-label use of it which is driving most of the sales.
When ill the body needs cysteine both for glutathione production and for mucus production. NAC is given to help with mucus clearance when patients have problems with that. It’s ironically a supplement that the same doctors office gave me in the previous visit when I came with an acute respiratory tract infection. NAC isn’t an esoteric supplement.
I think directionally the policy of the current US administration of moving the NIH to be less of a servant of Big Pharma is the right step, even when they might mess it up in practice.
That sounds to me like you haven’t really thought about the case. NAC has a well validated effect for clinical practice and is a routine medication and running the study for what is essentially off-label use of NAC wouldn’t discourage the on-label use of it which is driving most of the sales.
When ill the body needs cysteine both for glutathione production and for mucus production. NAC is given to help with mucus clearance when patients have problems with that. It’s ironically a supplement that the same doctors office gave me in the previous visit when I came with an acute respiratory tract infection. NAC isn’t an esoteric supplement.
I think directionally the policy of the current US administration of moving the NIH to be less of a servant of Big Pharma is the right step, even when they might mess it up in practice.