Ah that makes sense. I didnt realize you had other symptoms like the trouble breathing. I think it's very important for everyone to really hone down on where the effect is coming from (chelation, mobilization, the actual supplement itself, etc.). I personally also agree with you that the dose of those things are too high and once a day seems hard on the body. And the combination of those things at that. Someone over at Xymogen thought bigger is better and just blasted every chelation ingredient at high doses together and started selling it. :)

I follow the rule to chelation: LOW and SLOW. Regarding Cutler's protocol, I used to be a very loyal follower (not crazy) when I first got into chelation just due to the sheer amount of presence of Cutler and his followers on the internet (and fear tactics do help persuade) but the past 2 years I've spent researching day and night, and through my own personal experience and conversation with him (as well as other doctors who are chelation experts and patients who have made 100% recoveries) .... I've come to the conclusion that his protocol is not 100% correct. I have MANY PROBLEMS with his approach, protocol, attitude.
I agree with the pharmacology of drug half life, that's common sense and the proposition that chelating agents are to be given at certain intervals to keep the bloody level steady is of sound concept. I acknowledge that aspect of it. Everything else I believe is very iffy and based on shotty evidence.

I dont even know where to start and since you asked, I'll just be brief. First off, the guy himself is delusional. I don't mean he's crazy, he's not. Someone can be perfectly sane but delusional in the perception of their reality. And having had conversation with him and having read the internet debates of people who question him, his attitude is extremely childish. I posted on the boards questioning his method with solid evidence and logic. The only thing that he had to do was tell me where I was wrong and why. But if you look at the conversation, he addresses none of the technical aspects of what I brought up and continually hides behind the bush of authority and secrecy and states "oh you wouldnt understand cause it takes someone with actual knowledge of biology to know this, which you obviously don't have". Basically he insults you by saying you're not smart enough to debate technical stuff with him and that most people aren't. He's said this, god know how many times to his opposition. He also said "I would have had you banned if I was the moderator of the board, but you're lucky I'm not". but then, the moderators banned me anyway haha. Which is why I don't post there anymore. He has some very strange Cultish following and people will SERIOUSLY get mad if you disagree or bring to light certain questions cause it shakes their status quo.

I had a problem because I had legitimate questions that actually questioned the heart of his protocol and he saw it as a threat and decided he didn't want to risk losing what he has. (Whether its money, power, authority, I don't know).



But I asked him things like Why he chose ALA and the main study he uses to prove ALA a chelator is the Russian study. And if you do a search, numerous times and in interviews he implies that most people don't know how to read Russian and that to understand the idea of ALA as a chelator you need to be able to. Why so much secrecy?? Anyway, I read the study and it showed that rats given ALA with mercury vapor exposure showed higher levels of excretion than those without ALA. And somehow he get his entire protocol from that conclusion? That makes no sense! So that's why I asked. If he had a different study or a reason for thinking such things, all he had to do was just say it but I guess he viewed the question itself as a threat and had me banned.

The ALA + mercury exposure rats showed higher levels of excretion of mercury. That doesn't mean its a chelator. Cutler gave the definition of a chelator as a "double thiol" himself. Other chelation doctors don't necessarily go by this definition. ALA is a precursor to glutathione and is involved in all these cellular processes and antioxidant effect so how he judges that a) ALA is the PRIMARY chelator is beyond me. b) where he gets the frequent dose part from this study, I dont know.
Most studies (which everyone reading this can do) show that DMPS had the highest excretion of mercury (At least via kidneys), then DMSA and ALA was on par with glutathione which was last.

The entire book Amalgam Illness has tons of "How-tos" and explanations of ridiculous things like if you have high uranium levels, then takes Iron. With NO citation of where he gets this information. He could be right but without citations why would anyone believe it? The problem I have is his attitude that he does not like to explain himself and it sounds a little fishy to make a whole bunch of claims and not at least come out with an explanation and an adult attitude towards the whole thing.


I also addressed the constant reference to DMPSbackfire.com for saying that people who got DMPS IV got seriously ill and how that is basically cherry picking the evidence. IF you read the website (which hasnt been updated in years and the email is disconnected), nearly 70-80% of the patient reports had Amalgams in their mouth, the same percentage had done a high dose DMPS PUSH IV or a very rapid injection and one person even had a sulfa-drug allergy. The website condemns DMPS the drug period, in all its uses so its message isn't exactly the same as Cutler's protocol but the website draws support by referencing the use of Cutler's method. And of course, Cutler's group uses that websites as a reference for the "DMPS horror stories" without really going into the detail of why those patients had those results and the many variables involved.

The message group has a "files" section with a compilation of DMPS, EDTA, DMSA, ALA IV horror stories and I went ahead and messages every single person on that list and the stories were so widely varied. Some had Amalgams still in, one person said it wasn't the DMPS, one of the messages were actually a very vague statement with no details of method and dose and no followup, others had a very high dose push IV of DMPS. It was things like this, like the use of very shotty evidence that made me think about what is correct and what is not in the first place. Andy has made the statement "No one has ever gotten better from DMPS IV" (not verbatim) and when I posted this, he responded "where did I say this? What message #?". Well, I wish I could've responded cause I did provide the message number but the group removed my message and banned me.


Sorry if my message is long but much of what I wrote out here was on their board (which I did not know was moderated by them) and my message was removed and I was banned so I couldn't even continue the debate with Cutler himself. Basically he responded with a very childish response with no scientific evidence or even a simple explanation of his reasoning, then got the mods to ban me so he could have the last word. Not the first time I witnessed this.
I also received lots of email support from people who said they were doing fine on other protocols and that certain members of the group were very aggressive and that they thank me for speaking out against the dogmatic views by some of the followers of that protocol.



The protocol itself. Try it. That's all I have to say. I know people who have tied lots and then did well on the AC protocol. I also know people who tried the AC protocol for a long long time and didn't really get better until they pursued methods like Dr. Klinghardts or Dr. Buttar's. Lot of his bizarre claims in his book like taking iron to chelate uranium or some of that nonsense, I don't condone but if it works for you, then that's good. After all, the end result is what counts. Dont follow the attitude that his way is the only way cause its not. And please don't view him as an authority figure and follow blindly what he says like some people because once you do that, you give up your ability to reason and question everything. He doesn't like to be questioned or have to explain himself and his arrogance is beyond sickening but he does have a good point about going slowly and at low doses.