The one thing I did not like about the article is that there is so much emphasis on glutathione being like the "king of antioxidants". What about superoxide dismutases, which is also an essential antioxidant, immune stimulant, anti-inflammatory, etc. Then there are still other antioxidant such as catalase and the other peroxidases other than glutathione peroxidase. Bottom line is that there really is no king of antioxidants. Various antioxidants can have various other functions not supplied by any individual antioxidant so they are all just as important. For instance if we took out all the superoxide dismutases out of the body we would be dead and all the glutathione in the world would not make a difference. So claiming glutathione is the superior antioxidant is like saying the brain is more important than the heart. Take one out of the equation and would it really make a difference if you still have the other?