A while back someone on the forum left a rather snide remark that I was a “science denier.” I suppose that remark was based on their perception of my stated position that so-called vitamin A is not a vitamin at all, but rather only a toxin.
Of course they’re not alone. There are others in this community who stick to the belief it’s still an “essential vitamin”, and it’s only an issue when you get too much of it. Their position is actually perfectly fine with me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I also know that it will take considerable time to process all the evidence uncovered here and then reverse that opinion. So, I get it.
However, some people sure don’t like it when that opinion is challenged. Naturally, for some of these folks they have a vested personal interest, and even a financial interest, in supporting the mainstream narratives about the said vitamin. For them, “the science” is settled, and we are therefore not allowed to even question it. They have this completely unjustified arrogance that they somehow know better, and that “the science” is on their side. With that, they get very defensive when their beliefs are challenged and they resort to using these pejoratives to categorize me, and a few others, as being the “science deniers.” Talk about projection. I also find it quite troubling to know that there are so many people out there who simply can no longer critically think for themselves.
Anyway, no sorry, not by any stretch of the imagination am I a “science denier.” I’m pro science. I know and love science. I have a degree in applied science. I’ve taken many university courses in the pure sciences of physics, chemistry, and of course advanced calculus too. I’ve done scientific research in a lab. When I was a younger man, I had a deep and long love affair with engineering mathematics. With that I have a lot of respect for science. I definitely know and understand the fundamentals of the scientific method.
But I also know and understand human nature. I know just how unscrupulous and dishonest many people become when money is involved. And that’s especially true when a lot of money is involved. With that, I find it rather absurd when someone wants to claim that I’m a science denier because I’m not willing to gullibly just believe some prior stated narrative. Not being curious, and not questioning prior stated positions is being anti-scientific.
A few years ago, I had a conversation with a colleague of mine, who I consider to be a top-notch mechanical engineer. I described to him the standard method in medical “science” of using “studies.” Where there are usually many interconnected and interdependent variables, and realistically often in the tens, if not hundreds, and then statistics are used to derive some inferred conclusion. The next step in the medical “scientific” process is to debate it to come to some “scientific consensus.” Upon hearing that, he literally burst out laughing, immediately seeing how ridiculously absurd that process is compared to the rigour required in the pure and applied sciences. Of course, debating something to come to a “scientific consensus” is a complete oxymoron. That’s not science, it’s using opinion, influence and coercion. Debating is something politicians do, whereas real scientists use experiments and mathematics. And here’s a little-known secret about statistics: you can’t scientifically prove anything using statistics alone. Statistics can only give you some indication. I find the standard and almost exclusive use of statistics in most medical “studies” to be a big concern. That’s because the exclusive reliance on statistics and p values often completely replaces critical and creative thinking.
Now with that, let’s move on back to the very basics of the scientific method. Here’s a flowchart of the steps.
However, some of the more important features of the scientific method are the things that are not explicitly stated in that flowchart. Here’s what’s not stated, or even implied:
- Who does the experiment: No, anyone can do an experiment. The outcome of the experiment does not (at all) depend on the credentials of the experimenter. It exclusively depends on the results, and only the results.
- There is no step about “debating it” to come to a “scientific consensus.”
- There is no step of applying statistical analysis and using a p value exclusively to come to a “conclusion.”
- There’s no appeal or deferral to “authority” to make the call on it.
There are a few more very important rules of the scientific method.
- As much as possible, an experiment should have only one variable being manipulated and tested. Of course, that is often very difficult to do in the medical sciences due to the vastly complex nature of the human body.
- If there’s even just one valid and legitimate experiment that does not agree with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong. Period.
- The experiment must be repeatable and must be repeated independently by others.
These last two rules are absolutely critical and are irrefutable.
To the astute reader who has read my eBooks, and who has been following my blog posts, they’ll see that I’ve indeed followed the scientific method, and all the required steps.
What is also required by the scientific method is that the experimenter honestly and objectively reports their results regardless of the outcome. This is something that’s completely missing in many of the so-called medical “studies” that I’ve read. And in some cases, the fraud is so obvious and so blatant it’s stunning. I’ve also learned that many studies that have “unfavourable” outcomes are never published. That’s often the real role of the “peer reviewers” and journal editors. How is that “science?” Moreover, who in their right mind would trust any “science” conducted in that manner?
What is absolutely required in science is the freedom and willingness to question and challenge preexisting narratives. So, if anyone wants to continue to cling to the belief that so-called vitamin A is an “essential vitamin” and then disparage those with a different view, please shut up and put up. Do the experiment and simply prove it. They should be thrilled to have the chance to prove me wrong. Until then, I consider their pejoratives as just a bunch of hot air and childish drivel.
Several times now I’ve challenged a naysayer to do the small animal experiment, and it has always been met with a bunch of hand-waving excuses on why they can’t or won’t do it. Considering the consequences of continuing to get this wrong, I consider them to be charlatans assisting in perpetrating one the biggest scientific blunders (if not frauds) in human history. If they were genuinely and truly interested in science, then they would enthusiastically jump at this opportunity. Their refusal to do that tells us all we need to know about who the real “science deniers” are.
Whereas, what’s going on in this project is actual and legitimate science being conducted independently by people from around the world. And the supporting real-world results are coming in every week now. Very clearly none of this could have ever been accomplished by publishing “peer reviewed” papers. If someone doesn’t like that, or the approach being taken, too bad. We’re moving ahead without you.
Black Swan events in science
A common criticism I get is that my personal n=1 experiment does not prove the case. I somewhat addressed this in my Eight-Year Update blog post were I wrote about what’s called a black swan event. It’s about how one event or case can refute or overturn preexisting science. I’ll add a bit more to it here and try to further address that criticism.
Firstly, my n=1 was never intended to prove the case. It was of course just a starting point. More importantly, n isn’t just 1 anymore, it’s now easily more than 1000, and more likely approaching 10,000 people who are following a long-term low vitamin A diet. Here’s the thing, not a single person, not one has reported encountering so called vitamin A deficiency (gone blind, had their skin disintegrate etc, etc.) Additionally, we are now aware of long-term muscle meat only carnivores who are at 15+ years on their restricted diets (with incredibly low vA intake) and they are doing very well and have also not encountered so called vitamin A deficiency. Therefore, the “it’s an essential vitamin” claim is toast, and complete garbage “science”.
Secondly, but more importantly, for people claiming that n=1 cannot be used to prove the case tells us that they really don’t understand the fundamental rules of science. I totally agree that n=1 usually cannot be used to prove a new scientific fact, but it most certainly can be enough to disprove a previous hypothesis or presumed scientific fact. Yes, one of the rules in science is that even just 1 valid experiment that does not support the proposed hypothesis is sufficient to disprove the hypothesis, and therefore prove the hypothesis is wrong. Here’s a video with physicist Richard Feynman explaining the Scientific Method and highlighting this fundamental rule.
Now, if you don’t like that rule, then too bad, you are then one of the real “science deniers”.
Next, let’s consider a few facts we know for certain about the claimed to be “essential vitamin”:
- So-called vA is as toxic to the developing human fetus as is thalidomide.
- So-called vA is too toxic to be in serum outside of the protective RBP or lipofuscin wrappers. That right, on its own, vA is instantly toxic to cells.
- So-called vA is an absolutely proven serious fertility toxin.
- So-called vA is the only known food-based chemical to cause bone loss and osteoporosis.
- So-called vA damages and sometimes even fractures the cell’s DNA.
- So-called vA causes the immune cells to stall out and not respond appropriately.
- So-called vA is absolutely proven to cause cancer.
- So-called vA is absolutely proven to cause insulin resistance.
- The “active form” of so-called vA, retinoic acid, is absolutely proven to cause the head-to-toe destruction of the human body.
Yet, in the face of these facts, the naysayers will still steadfastly cling to the belief that it’s somehow still an essential vitamin. I’m sorry, but that’s just f’n nuts!
Current state and corruption of “The Science” in the medical sector.
I’ve pointed out in my eBooks and some of my blog posts some of the frauds and ongoing scams in medical “science”. Of course, I’ve only scratched the surface of it. It goes much deeper. And the corruption and scams have been going on for decades.
Many years ago, I saw a press conference by a then young Anthony Fauci announcing the programme to develop a vaccine for AIDS. In the press conference he stated something like: “the vaccine will add to the long list of cures developed by the pharmaceutical industry”. Way back then, in my 20s I thought to myself, hmm that’s strange, as I don’t know of any actual cures.
Well, here’s the long list of pharmaceutical“cures”, even today:
===== Start ======
===== End =======
That’s correct, after 100 years of modern medical “science”, and with the medical industry currently raking in trillions of dollars annually, the total number of non-infectious diseases that have been cured by a pharmaceutical drug is exactly zero. How’s that for the advancement of “the science?” When compared to huge advancements made in every other field of science and engineering over the last 100 years it’s a pathetic joke. Of course, the fundamental problem is that the companies and people we’ve put in charge of finding cures for diseases are the same ones that massively profit by not finding root causes and therefore cures.
Here’s a recent book from Sharyl Attkisson on the topic of the systemic and institutionalized corruption, and frauds, in the medical sector:
Follow the Science: How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails
After reading this book, no one in their right mind should trust a single word from this industry, nor their captured government agencies, and especially not their “science!”
Episodes of Night Blindness
One of the key assertions I’ve made in my eBooks was that many of the symptoms of so-called vitamin A deficiency are actually the same as those of vitamin A toxicity. Here’s a couple more examples. In a few of my update blog posts I’ve mentioned my recovery of partial colour blindness. At first it was yellows getting much brighter, and then later it was reds and greens. I first thought it was just my overall vision becoming much clearer and brighter. It wasn’t until all colours became brighter and more distinguishable that it understood that it was actually the reversal of partial colour blindness. One of the most fundamental claims of so-called vA is that it is required for the vision cycle (process). But, if you dig a little deeper, that claim is further qualified in that vA is only required for night vision, with a bunch of vague excuses on why it’s not needed for daytime vision. As I’ve shown in my eBook, even after just 10 minutes of analysis, it is completely scientifically impossible for a chemical reaction to be the fundamental mechanism of the vision process in either the day or night light. But, hey, real science doesn’t seem to apply in the medical sector. Now, very oddly, after being in a state of “severe vitamin A deficiency” for over 8 years my vision has not only significantly improved but my overall eye health is now excellent as well.
Next up, one of the other fundamental claims is that loss of night vision (night blindness) is a symptom of so-called vA deficiency. However, very oddly, there are millions of senior citizens in North America who now have partial night blindness after a lifetime accumulation of vA. Yet once again, basic facts and real science doesn’t seem to apply in the medical sector. They just seem to prefer to make shit up as they go.
Anyways, when I reported in a few of my update blog posts that I encountered episodes of night blindness some naysayers quickly latched onto that claiming that I was finally encountering vA deficiency. It was like, “aha, it finally caught up to him, any day now fat Frenchie is going to croak.” I’m sure it came with great disappointment to them that it still hasn’t happened. I’m just as sure that they’ve not dared to question their sacred “science” on the claimed to be “essential” vitamin.
But here’s a peculiar thing, many people have reported encountering night blindness after taking Accutane (et al). That’s right, after taking the “active form” of the essential vitamin supposedly needed for night vision they then encounter night blindness.
Administering isotretinoin in patients who already have low vitamin A stores may lead to rapid development of night blindness.
Isotretinoin-Induced Night Blindness – PMC – NCBI
Of course, they need to gaslight the reader, throwing up the ridiculous excuse claiming that it only occurs in people with low vitamin A stores (which is virtually impossible in North America). Basically, stating only if a person has low vA, and we give them more vitamin A then they rapidly develop night blindness. The stupidity of such an obviously circular argument is just so beyond stupid it’s staggering. Except, it’s not really stupidity. It’s just that no one in the mafia-cult of the medical sector (and that’s absolutely what it is) is allowed to say anything negative about the claimed to be “essential” vitamin.
Using pejorative and labeling people as being “science deniers” was a standard ploy applied by the government and pharma paid “fact checkers” during the pandemic. Their tactic came across to me like: “Only those foolish science deniers would question being injected with a highly experimental substance with secret ingredients hidden behind secret contracts. The rest of us smart people are all good with it.”
Well, how did that one turn out??