CureZone   Log On   Join
Re: Why is Cutler so against supplemental glutathione?
powertool4 Views: 25,410
Published: 12 years ago
This is a reply to # 1,819,653

Re: Why is Cutler so against supplemental glutathione?

I agree with you for the most part. But I do know that some people can't tolerate GSH, especially among autistic children. It's unknown why. But I won't ever believe the statistics that Andy throws out. He has no citations for them. He states that 50% of people can't do GSH. I dont understand where he gets this number...from his personal observation of internet posters on the yahoo board? And MOST of his stuff in his book is uncited. It just isn't. I mean his general theory of frequent and low dose chelation is backed up with some of his citations but he goes on and has an entire appendix about how various supplements do what, and how they affect certain things. Like if you have this, take 500mg of taurine. But if you get this, take Glycine. And he treats the body like a flask and purely a chemical reaction, which is why most of his supplemental advice hasn't worked for me.

Also, no one including him has answered my question when I asked why if NAC is considered a chelator by a few people and a few studies, does he allow it for the "precursor" of glutathione. And why isn't GSH directly allowed but the precursors are allowed if the end results is to make more glutathione in the first place.


Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2023

0.797 sec, (1)