What's new
By:
Filters
Cystic Fibrosis Forum (EXP)

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who wants to be the viagra guinae pig?

E

Ender

New member
You're right jenn, there actually was a study involving a cf patient with end stage lung disease and viagra to help with pulmonary hypertension. Although it didn't affect his fev1, he was able to excercise better (he might have been too far gone to see a difference in lung function).

Here's the link:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16479610&dopt=Abstract
">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en...6479610&dopt=Abstract
</a>
and amy, you can be skeptical all you want, but sometimes i think you're a victim of your own intelligence. I'm sure you know why all of us aren't on viagra. These are just case studies. People like to cover their own buts. Same thing with curcumin, surfactants, HS. This stuff takes way too much damn time in my opinion. That's why i think sometimes for stuff like this, that is known to be somewhat safe, you might as well give it a try.

How many of us take curcumin, NAC, Oregano oil. None of this stuff is backed by the cff, yet a lot of us are trying it on our own accord. I will admit that the NAC and the curcumin are being tested, but how long did it take for them to finally decide to do some trials? I find it so fustrating sometimes.
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Ender</b></i>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>amy</b></i>



<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Ender</b></i>







<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>amy</b></i>















1. I just have a hard time believing that's true. If it was, why isn't every CF patient taking it? Reminds me of those info-mercials on TV. If you could just take a pill and lose weight, why wouldn't everyone be doing it? I'm extremely skeptical.















































2. Pfizer (the maker of Viagra) has conducted Cystic Fibrosis trials before. Remember the zithromax clinical trial? Zithro is made by Pfizer as well. Granted the CFF did foot some of the bill. Who knows? Maybe Pfizer will jump on board again...</end quote></div>















Um maybe because they just came up with the results, and they haven't had time to see if a long term treatment with viagra is safe and tolerable?















True or not, the research is there. What they do with that is another question</end quote></div>







Um so are they doing phase II or phase III trials to test safety/tolerability?</end quote></div>



You tell me.</end quote></div>

what is that supposed to mean? you're the one doing the research. how am i supposed to know if they're doing these????
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Ender</b></i>
e&db=PubMed&list_uids=16479610&dopt=Abstract
[/L]


and amy, you can be skeptical all you want, but sometimes i think you're a victim of your own intelligence. I'm sure you know why all of us aren't on viagra. These are just case studies. People like to cover their own buts. Same thing with curcumin, surfactants, HS. This stuff takes way too much damn time in my opinion. That's why i think sometimes for stuff like this, that is known to be somewhat safe, you might as well give it a try.
.</end quote></div>

don't take your frustration out of me, man. just cuz i'm skeptical doesn't mean you need to throw a personal attack.
 
E

Ender

New member
My bad. Sometimes i think your posts come off as a little demeaning...like your word is god, ya know? I guess you're just strong on your convictions, but I took that "Um so are they doing phase II or phase III trials to test safety/tolerability?"
a bit too personally, kinda asking me if i knew what i was talking about, which i don't most of the time hahaha, but ya. That's the thing about the net. You can't figure out the tone of freaking sentences, and how they are supposed to come across.
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Ender</b></i>

My bad. Sometimes i think your posts come off as a little demeaning...like your word is god, ya know? I guess you're just strong on your convictions, but I took that "Um so are they doing phase II or phase III trials to test safety/tolerability?"

a bit too personally, kinda asking me if i knew what i was talking about, which i don't most of the time hahaha, but ya. That's the thing about the net. You can't figure out the tone of freaking sentences, and how they are supposed to come across.</end quote></div>

"Um so are they doing phase II or phase III trials to test safety/tolerability?" was in response to your line of "Um maybe because they just came up with the results, and they haven't had time to see if a long term treatment with viagra is safe and tolerable? " I was just mimicing your sentence structure.

but i appreciate you clarifying. you have a lot of great info that you post here and i learn a lot from it <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
 
P

Pete

New member
I haven't tried viagra, but i did try something called Yohimbi (sp?)....but i don't have CF, my missus does and Yohimbi has nothing to do with breakthroughs in medicine...was just one hell of a night hehehehehehe <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif" border="0">
 
I

IG

Guest
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16612392&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum
">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en...5&itool=pubmed_docsum
</a>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16479610&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum
">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en...5&itool=pubmed_docsum
</a>
Ender you might be interested in these, (circa 2006)
 
S

Scarlett81

New member
Amy to answer your question about 1.why I wouldn't and 2. why I made the 'political' comment...b/c I still haven't figured how to do that copy and paste thing for these posts...lol.

Um, I'm trying to think of how to word this. Ok. Viagra was made to give a man an erection. To increase blood flow in a reproductive sense, right? I don't have a you-know-what, so I wouldn't want to take something that could alter my reproductive organs. We know its safe in a man, but there hasn't been extensive testing on women I'm presuming.

As for the second question, you seem like a very politically aware person from the posts I've read from you, ect. And drug companies, the FDA, and insurance companies have slowed down, prevented, or altered the public's access to meds in the past. Some for good reasons perhaps, some-for other reasons, like money, insurance competition, ect. I think that most of these companies in general mean well and have great intentions. But all I'm saying is that in the end they are businesses.

Some probably don't agree with that, and maybe not you b/c of your profession which I'd understand. I'm not knocking your profession or any of these companies, just stating an opinion.
 
E

Ender

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>ImmortalGoddezz</b></i>

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en...l=pubmed_docsum
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16612392&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum
<br ">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en...bmed_docsum
</a></a>


<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16479610&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum
<br ">">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...l=pubmed_docsum
</a>


Ender you might be interested in these, (circa 2006)</end quote></div>

The first one was pretty interesting. The articles i posted about L-arganine and gsh had to do with increaseing the amount of NO in the lungs.

"Thus, the endosomal hyperacidification and excessive proinflammatory response in CF are in part due to deficiencies in NO- and cGMP-regulated processes and can be pharmacologically reversed using PDE5 inhibitors."

I guess that the PDE5 inhibitors have a roll in increasing NO production as well.

I think the cff is doing studies with inhaled GSNO in the lungs. The reason they don't use NO directly is because the half life is very short, whereas the half life of GSNO is literally hours. That's the theory behind GSH and l arganine inhalation. Use GSH as substrate for the GS, whereas the L-arganine increases NO production in the lungs.

Taking l-arganine orally actually does show increased NO production in the lungs, so if you were to inhale GSH like many of you do, you might benefit from trying some oral L-arganine.

The reason people don't do GSNO therapy now is that it is really expensive, and would be very hard to do without a prescription.

Idealy you would inhale one right afte the other, but with the HS, GSH, TOBI etc, your talking about a lot of freaking nebs. I think for me, i would take the l-arganine internally, inhale the gsh twice a day as well as take it internally, and leave it at that. That would leave me with lets say, 3 nebs twice a day...The HS with OO, GSH, and then tobi.

I guess the main thing holding me back right now is the price...cause GSH can get pretty expensive, and I don't have much money right now. But as soon as i get myself settled, I'm gonna start taking GSH again as well as l-arganine. Couple that with DHA and beta carotene...wth some other antioxidants, and you're looking at a pretty intense combination <img src="">

long winded, i opologize heheh

Kiel
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Scarlett81</b></i>

Amy to answer your question about 1.why I wouldn't and 2. why I made the 'political' comment...b/c I still haven't figured how to do that copy and paste thing for these posts...lol.



Um, I'm trying to think of how to word this. Ok. Viagra was made to give a man an erection. To increase blood flow in a reproductive sense, right? I don't have a you-know-what, so I wouldn't want to take something that could alter my reproductive organs. We know its safe in a man, but there hasn't been extensive testing on women I'm presuming.



As for the second question, you seem like a very politically aware person from the posts I've read from you, ect. And drug companies, the FDA, and insurance companies have slowed down, prevented, or altered the public's access to meds in the past. Some for good reasons perhaps, some-for other reasons, like money, insurance competition, ect. I think that most of these companies in general mean well and have great intentions. But all I'm saying is that in the end they are businesses.



Some probably don't agree with that, and maybe not you b/c of your profession which I'd understand. I'm not knocking your profession or any of these companies, just stating an opinion.</end quote></div>

Thanks for the clarification.

One thing to keep in mind - Viagra wasn't developed for ED. It was originally developed by Pfizer as a drug to help men who were suffering from chest pain - a heart medication.

One of the side effects just happened to be erections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top