Re: Response to Dr. Boyd Haley's response to my discussions of OSR

January 20, 2010

Thanks Andy for looking out for us. I know there are probably hundreds of

familys (if not more)Â already giving this to their kids due to their DAN!

doctor recommending it. I hope they stop and the damage was not too severe.

TJ

________________________________

From: andrewhallcutler <AndyCutler@...>

Sent: Tue, January 19, 2010 11:41:52 PM

Subject: [ ] Response to Dr. Boyd Haley's response to my

discussions of OSR

Â

A message purported to be Boyd Haley's response to me is circulating on the

internet. I believe it is appropriate for me to respond to it with some further

useful information. I have cut my responses into this message, and also appended

the message in full at the end of the `discussion' so there can be no question I

have not taken it out of context in any way. It is of course possible, given the

joys of digital communications, that this message has been forwarded many times

and may have been modified so that it does not accurately convey Dr. Haley's

views, or may not have been intended as anything other than a private message to

a single specific recipient (and may thus have been imprecise and not well

wordsmithed for completely reasonable reasons). However all I can do is respond

to it as is and if there have been any modifications or statements not

accurately conveying Dr. Haley's thoughts I hope he will feel free to correct

those. I'll be forwarding

him a courtesy copy of this privately, and to Dr. FlatabÃ¸ if I can find a

valid email address for him, as well as circulating it publicly.

Anyone who wishes may forward this or repost it provided that the entire

message, without any modification is posted and any additional commentary is

clearly identified as such and ONLY appears at the beginning of the message.

++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ ++++++

Dr. Haley's original message (preceded by > >) with my comments

++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ ++++++

>

> Boyd Haleys Response to Andy Cutlers " message "

>

> Geir FlatabÃ¸

>

> > First, the only claim made for OSR is that it is a lipid soluble, dietary

> > antioxidant that scavenges free radicals and helps maintain a healthy

> > glutathione level. Maintaining a healthy glutathione level can possibly

> > help detox the body of any toxin that is carried out of the body as a

> > glutathione complex, and this includes many heavy metals as well as toxic

> > organic molecules that are attached to glutathione by the enzyme

> > glutathione- S-transferase after the oxidation by the Phase II P-450

> > enzymes.

> >

> > I know of Andy Cutler and have read his book and I agree that he has

> > proposed a detox scheme involving LPA (lipoic acid) that I have found quite

> > reasonable as I am also not a fan of using toxic chelators. However, this

> > detox scheme has not effectively reversed the oxidative stress (as measured

> > by low reduced glutathione levels) in many who have tried it, or so I am

> > told. This may be due to the fact that LPA ( has a disulfide linkage and

> > already in the oxidized form and unable to bind any metal in its delivered

> > form) can add to the oxidized stress level as LPA (lipoic acid) has to be

> > reduced to the dihydrolipoic acid (dihydro-LPA) form before it can bind to

> > any metal. This reduction of LPA to dihydro-LPA requires reducing

> > potential and reduces the body's ability to produce reduced glutathione

> > since both the reduction of oxidized LPA and oxidized Glutathione (GSSG) are

> > biochemical steps that consume reducing equivalents in the form of the basic

> > molecule(s) NAD(P)H. Using a beginning oxidized molecule to treat

> > patients who are already under oxidative stress is not the best approach in

> > my opinion. One big difference between OSR and LPA is one is totally in

> > the reduced form (OSR) and one is in the oxidized form (LPA). Another

> > difference is OSR is without a charge and LPA has a negatively charged acid

> > group on it, this likely could change the partitioning in the cell membrane

> > and fatty tissues. Further, google " lipoic acid MSDS " and the material

> > safety data sheet will give you a LD-50 value, do the same with vitamin E.

> > We could not determine a LD-50 of OSR and the group that tested its safety

> > stated the LD-50 is above 5 grams/kg body weight. Just because something

> > is natural does not mean it is safe.

> >

> > Also, Andy makes some comments about me that are just not true. I have

> > taught graduate level biochemistry/ physiology courses since 1974,

> > specializing in biochemical kinetics/thermodyna mics and bioenergetics. My

> > area of research expertise for over 30 years was to use novel, chemically

> > synthesized compounds to unravel problems in energy utilizing enzymes and

> > pathways. Without hopefully sounding like a braggart, I was quite

> > successful. I certainly do understand chemical and biochemical

> > kinetics/thermodyna mics and how certain compounds pass through the

membranes

> > and organs of mammals. I have had a huge amount of NIH funds over many

> > years to study such phenomenon and sat on NIH Study Section Panels for many

> > years helping evaluate federal grants. My past training and experience

> > has played a major role in my research success.

> >

> > No one in medicine totally understands all of the intricacies required for

> > heavy metal detox or movement of chemicals around the body and I am not

> > claiming exceptional knowledge. I just claim to be a solid, well trained

> > scientist that knows how to design and test certain compounds to accomplish

> > specific goals and how to test them to make sure they are as safe as one can

> > possibly predetermine them to be. I then know enough to proceed slow and

> > easy with the help of other well trained associates doing the monitoring

> > until maximum safety and efficiency is established or not. What bothers

> > me about Andy Cutler's article is that he judges my work but does not know

> > what I have done, or what I can disclose and cannot disclose and still be of

> > immediate help to many. He is interpreting going slow and doing careful

> > work as not having done essential studies and this is not the case.

Initially,

> > the compound was not offered to anyone except those who were capable of

> > testing it slowly and carefully. Andy's concerns as mentioned in his

> > missive are those that any careful person would test for, and we did, with

> > safety being the highest priority. I can also assure you that the DAN

> > doctors couldn't have been more cautious in regards to evaluating OSR and it

> > is today not a " DAN " approved procedure. We recently just started and

> > much work was done before any OSR was provided to anyone.

> >

> > In the recent past we have obtained pharmacokinetic studies on OSR, data on

> > OSR's oxygen radical absorbance capacity and identification of the

> > metabolites of OSR in human liver homogenates. We know that OSR peaks in

> > the plasma and all tested organs after two hours post ingestion, at 24 hours

> > post ingestion the levels are between 4 to 12% of the two hour peak values.

> > OSR was found to enter the cells of all tissues tested, and to be excreted,

> > most likely as an oxidized species as indicted by the mass spectrometry data

> > obtained with liver homogenates. This study indicated that the first two

> > main products of OSR modification by liver homogenates were those with 2 and

> > 3 oxygens attached to the arm with the sulfhydryl attached as would be

> > expected for a free radical scavenger.

> >

> > OSR did not concentrate in the brain and was effectively excreted from this

> > organ. While I cannot assure one of the mechanism it is well known that

> > most compounds taken into the body are excreted by mechanisms that protect

> > the brain from excess exposure. I think the same is true of OSR, it is

> > obviously being excreted by a mechanism that is designed to removed

> > compounds with oxidized sulfhydryls. Do note the similarity of the

> > sulfhydryl containing arms of OSR to that of reduced glutathione. This

> > was put in the design of OSR on purpose to take advantage of any

> > characteristic that would allow additional safety and utility.

> >

> > Finally, Andy's comments about LPA being a superior binding agent because

> > it forms a six membered ring is seriously flawed, the affinity of binding

> > any specific metal depends a lot on the angle of binding that specific

> > (coordination chemistry) and a six membered ring is only considered the most

> > stable or sterically favored if the angle is that of a carbon atom, not any

> > metal. For example, the most stable bond angle of the two bonds of Hg2+

> > is 180o, consider that there is no way a 180o bond angle can be formed

> > with Hg2+ in a six membered ring consisting of 5 carbons as found in

> > dihydro-LPA.

> >

> > Boyd E. Haley, PhD

January 20, 2010

I don't think OSR is a dangerous supplement to take if taken as a chelator. At

the same time, I don't think it is a miracle thing. At worse, it is like

Glutathione and at best it is like DMSA/ALA.

regards,

Ragha

> >

> > Boyd Haleys Response to Andy Cutlers " message "

> >

> > Geir FlatabÃ¸

> >

> > > First, the only claim made for OSR is that it is a lipid soluble, dietary

> > > antioxidant that scavenges free radicals and helps maintain a healthy

> > > glutathione level. Maintaining a healthy glutathione level can possibly

> > > help detox the body of any toxin that is carried out of the body as a

> > > glutathione complex, and this includes many heavy metals as well as toxic

> > > organic molecules that are attached to glutathione by the enzyme

> > > glutathione- S-transferase after the oxidation by the Phase II P-450

> > > enzymes.

> > >

> > > I know of Andy Cutler and have read his book and I agree that he has

> > > proposed a detox scheme involving LPA (lipoic acid) that I have found

quite

> > > reasonable as I am also not a fan of using toxic chelators. However, this

> > > detox scheme has not effectively reversed the oxidative stress (as

measured

> > > by low reduced glutathione levels) in many who have tried it, or so I am

> > > told. This may be due to the fact that LPA ( has a disulfide linkage and

> > > already in the oxidized form and unable to bind any metal in its delivered

> > > form) can add to the oxidized stress level as LPA (lipoic acid) has to be

> > > reduced to the dihydrolipoic acid (dihydro-LPA) form before it can bind to

> > > any metal. This reduction of LPA to dihydro-LPA requires reducing

> > > potential and reduces the body's ability to produce reduced glutathione

> > > since both the reduction of oxidized LPA and oxidized Glutathione (GSSG)

are

> > > biochemical steps that consume reducing equivalents in the form of the

basic

> > > molecule(s) NAD(P)H. Using a beginning oxidized molecule to treat

> > > patients who are already under oxidative stress is not the best approach

in

> > > my opinion. One big difference between OSR and LPA is one is totally in

> > > the reduced form (OSR) and one is in the oxidized form (LPA). Another

> > > difference is OSR is without a charge and LPA has a negatively charged

acid

> > > group on it, this likely could change the partitioning in the cell

membrane

> > > and fatty tissues. Further, google " lipoic acid MSDS " and the material

> > > safety data sheet will give you a LD-50 value, do the same with vitamin E.

> > > We could not determine a LD-50 of OSR and the group that tested its safety

> > > stated the LD-50 is above 5 grams/kg body weight. Just because something

> > > is natural does not mean it is safe.

> > >

> > > Also, Andy makes some comments about me that are just not true. I have

> > > taught graduate level biochemistry/ physiology courses since 1974,

> > > specializing in biochemical kinetics/thermodyna mics and bioenergetics. My

> > > area of research expertise for over 30 years was to use novel, chemically

> > > synthesized compounds to unravel problems in energy utilizing enzymes and

> > > pathways. Without hopefully sounding like a braggart, I was quite

> > > successful. I certainly do understand chemical and biochemical

> > > kinetics/thermodyna mics and how certain compounds pass through the

membranes

> > > and organs of mammals. I have had a huge amount of NIH funds over many

> > > years to study such phenomenon and sat on NIH Study Section Panels for

many

> > > years helping evaluate federal grants. My past training and experience

> > > has played a major role in my research success.

> > >

> > > No one in medicine totally understands all of the intricacies required for

> > > heavy metal detox or movement of chemicals around the body and I am not

> > > claiming exceptional knowledge. I just claim to be a solid, well trained

> > > scientist that knows how to design and test certain compounds to

accomplish

> > > specific goals and how to test them to make sure they are as safe as one

can

> > > possibly predetermine them to be. I then know enough to proceed slow and

> > > easy with the help of other well trained associates doing the monitoring

> > > until maximum safety and efficiency is established or not. What bothers

> > > me about Andy Cutler's article is that he judges my work but does not know

> > > what I have done, or what I can disclose and cannot disclose and still be

of

> > > immediate help to many. He is interpreting going slow and doing careful

> > > work as not having done essential studies and this is not the case.

Initially,

> > > the compound was not offered to anyone except those who were capable of

> > > testing it slowly and carefully. Andy's concerns as mentioned in his

> > > missive are those that any careful person would test for, and we did, with

> > > safety being the highest priority. I can also assure you that the DAN

> > > doctors couldn't have been more cautious in regards to evaluating OSR and

it

> > > is today not a " DAN " approved procedure. We recently just started and

> > > much work was done before any OSR was provided to anyone.

> > >

> > > In the recent past we have obtained pharmacokinetic studies on OSR, data

on

> > > OSR's oxygen radical absorbance capacity and identification of the

> > > metabolites of OSR in human liver homogenates. We know that OSR peaks in

> > > the plasma and all tested organs after two hours post ingestion, at 24

hours

> > > post ingestion the levels are between 4 to 12% of the two hour peak

values.

> > > OSR was found to enter the cells of all tissues tested, and to be

excreted,

> > > most likely as an oxidized species as indicted by the mass spectrometry

data

> > > obtained with liver homogenates. This study indicated that the first two

> > > main products of OSR modification by liver homogenates were those with 2

and

> > > 3 oxygens attached to the arm with the sulfhydryl attached as would be

> > > expected for a free radical scavenger.

> > >

> > > OSR did not concentrate in the brain and was effectively excreted from

this

> > > organ. While I cannot assure one of the mechanism it is well known that

> > > most compounds taken into the body are excreted by mechanisms that protect

> > > the brain from excess exposure. I think the same is true of OSR, it is

> > > obviously being excreted by a mechanism that is designed to removed

> > > compounds with oxidized sulfhydryls. Do note the similarity of the

> > > sulfhydryl containing arms of OSR to that of reduced glutathione. This

> > > was put in the design of OSR on purpose to take advantage of any

> > > characteristic that would allow additional safety and utility.

> > >

> > > Finally, Andy's comments about LPA being a superior binding agent because

> > > it forms a six membered ring is seriously flawed, the affinity of binding

> > > any specific metal depends a lot on the angle of binding that specific

> > > (coordination chemistry) and a six membered ring is only considered the

most

> > > stable or sterically favored if the angle is that of a carbon atom, not

any

> > > metal. For example, the most stable bond angle of the two bonds of Hg2+

> > > is 180o, consider that there is no way a 180o bond angle can be formed

> > > with Hg2+ in a six membered ring consisting of 5 carbons as found in

> > > dihydro-LPA.

> > >

> > > Boyd E. Haley, PhD

>

January 21, 2010

The point that Andy was making is that it is a chelator, and needs to be given

every half life, like DMSA and ALA.

What it's half life is not even known, or at least not public information. This

is not how it is being presribed.

So, with that information, it is a chelator being used on an improper dosing

schedule, and causing more organ and brain damage.

TJ

________________________________

From: truthwinsnow <raghavendrapb@...>

Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 4:56:08 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Response to Dr. Boyd Haley's response to my

discussions of OSR

Â

I don't think OSR is a dangerous supplement to take if taken as a chelator. At

the same time, I don't think it is a miracle thing. At worse, it is like

Glutathione and at best it is like DMSA/ALA.

regards,

Ragha

> >

> > Boyd Haleys Response to Andy Cutlers " message "

> >

> > Geir FlatabÃƒÂ¸