NAC Banned from Amazon, FDA Says It's Medication

Wow, that website. In five minutes of skimming, this article is the most sensible thing I found on that site.

Take the contents with a large grain of salt.

>Using the Drug Exclusion Provision on CBD may have opened the door for the FDA to make similar claims against NAC, but there is still the question of timing. Why has the FDA chosen to target NAC now? In the past the provision was used inappropriately in three instances to protect the finances of pharmaceutical companies, and it is likely the motivation to ban NAC as a supplement has the same roots.

I'm sure the provision will be used inappropriately many times.

That's very disappointing. I assume this means there will be a big price hike for NAC now? I can't see how requiring a prescription for it would keep it's supply/demand balance in favor of the average consumer.

Hopefully I can stock up on some before it disappears from store shelves.

The public should be able to hold the FDA accountable.

I'm glad I stocked up on it. I don't use it for the purposes mentioned, but it's handy to keep around. It's actually pretty easy to make so not a problem if the FDA puts it in the RX categories.

It's because glutathione cures, especially the elderly.

> N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has made the news, not because scientists discovered a new health benefit, but because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration decided after 57 years of over-the-counter sales the compound is now a medication that requires a physician’s prescription.

> [...] NAC is valued as a precursor to glutathione, also called the “master antioxidant.” [...]

> NAC is useful in the treatment of acetaminophen poisoning, helping to lower the risk of mortality and liver damage. Despite a long history of concurrent use as an over-the-counter supplement and prescription medication in the hospital, the FDA has not been interested in removing the status as a dietary supplement — not, that is, until recently when NAC showed promise in the fight against [SARS2].

bastards.

Can someone explain this to me? It sounds like they want to claim that it cures COVID, and the FDA is invoking an obscure rule that basically says they need to prove it first.

There's also a bunch of numbers on the page, as if there were good footnotes, but no footnotes? Am I missing something?

> And, without severe disease, is there truly a need for a vaccine?

I don't have a severe risk of death in a car accident, is there truly a need for seatbelts? They restrict my breathing and are uncomfortable.

I take a little NAC before a night of drinking. Too bad the FDA is doing this.

Wouldn't want people getting an affordable treatment for medical conditions after all.

To be fair, this site is a little goofy. But it wouldn't surprise me if their accusations are true. After learning about the absolute clusterfuck that led to the "Food Pyramid" back in the 90s (industry lobbyists hand-made it to promote their foodstuffs, in sharp contradiction to actual nutrition science of the day) I've more or less come to expect this kind of behavior from organizations like the FDA.