I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Canada cuts off "right to try" for cancer patients?
Quote from whatisaging on March 20, 2026, 9:21 amYeah, I'm annoyed at being questioned like this, when I've stated my position clearly and openly, provided screenshots, and clear links thereto. Instead I'm responded to with mysterious questions that don't give any sense of what you're thinking, and just reflect demands for one-sided information from me.
Then when I express this, I get "notes taken" when I'm perceived as being hostile, like I'm getting a foul in some game.
I am looking for vitamin A posts with a scientific bent.
If you stop inferring what I am thinking for one second you might find I am asking a question because I do not know the answer and want to know the answer. Not everyone is as smart as you are nor hostile to you. Appreciate the magnificent load on your patience generator. Thank you.
When I am looking for such posts, I use the search bar. Why would I want to page through by titles?
@joe2 "When I am looking for such posts, I use the search bar. Why would I want to page through by titles?"
and when someone new comes to the forum without any idea what to search for specifically all he sees are your threads with some random stuff from X. Great...
That will really help to keep people interested in this forum..
That B12 injection post is a good example. I wouldn't know to search for B12 helping vitamin A until I had already seen that post.
Quote from whatisaging on March 21, 2026, 4:09 amThat B12 injection post is a good example. I wouldn't know to search for B12 helping vitamin A until I had already seen that post.
What B12 injection post? Why not search B12? Or vitamin A? Or vitamin A detox? Or vitamin A remedy, or antidote?....
I remember when I first found Grant on Judy Cho's youtube, I then came here. I read everything Grant had. I only came to the forum after that. I saw most of the current posts were arguing this or that. After reading some current posts, I went to the list of members and looked up their posts. Some members were worth drilling down through all their posts. Some only took looking at 5 or 10 posts before realizing they were throwing shade and worth avoiding.
Never thought to just subscribe to any posts until much later.
Are you telling me this is an unusual approach to take when checking out a new forum? Did you just jump in and start reading down everything that was coming up in the most recent posts? First thing I noticed back then was that Grant did not post that often and that what he did post was routinely measured and profound. There were not many others doing similarly here and on the only other vitamin A blog I could find.
So most of my reading my first year was Grant, Hope Tipton, Tyler Ginter and a couple others. From them I learned what key words to look up. And what folk to contact here and elsewhere like Steve Goeddeke, Karen Hurd, Thor Torrens, Chris DeVocht, Mike Roberto,.....
I wouldn't search for B12, since it wouldn't be on my radar at that point. I wouldn't know that B12 is relevant in this context, if it were not for seeing that post in the title queue.
Other searches only work if you keep a thesaurus on hand and plug in all the synonyms. The B12 post comes up under "vitamin A antidote" but not "vitamin A remedy".
And yes, after reading all of Grant's stuff, I spent time on the forum, and almost never used the search feature, which is too limited for my taste.
Often times, I also just want to scroll the forum without thinking about a purpose in mind, and just see if there's any good stuff in the queue.
Joe needs his own blog, where he can post as he pleases. Or, at the very least, his posts were just one single thread, which has been suggested by other users before. His engagement is great, but the sheer volume of posts is overwhelming. I stopped clicking on his posts altogether because it's usually just a link. No explanation. No context. It borders on being annoying.
If I were a moderator, I would throw every link post into one single thread. Consequently. It's very clear that a lot of users here have had enough. Moderation is actually pretty poor, sorry guys, to be frank here. It's your job to keep this forum a quality forum.
@joe2 my drug/cope/escape of choice is youtube. But it got really bad so I started using filter. It hides everything but videos of channels that I already subscribe. If I want to see something different I have use search for something specific. Now it is great for not spending watching random stuff 24/7. But at the same time I miss so many interesting stuff that would be helpful for me to see.
I think it is great comparison to this "debate" with you. If people can't just look what topics are here and learn new stuff that they had no idea about and have to search for something specific. There is pretty good chance that they will never find/know what they should know and find...
Like if youtube was like that with that filter. I would say views would drop like by 90% hehe..
Quote from Hermes on March 21, 2026, 6:56 pmI stopped clicking on his posts altogether because it's usually just a link. No explanation. No context. It borders on being annoying.
That's a very good point. Posting a link without an explanation in what way it concerns the current discussion should be avoided. (Even if it's in a middle of an existing thread)
Quote from whatisaging on March 21, 2026, 2:27 pmI wouldn't search for B12, since it wouldn't be on my radar at that point. I wouldn't know that B12 is relevant in this context, if it were not for seeing that post in the title queue.
Other searches only work if you keep a thesaurus on hand and plug in all the synonyms. The B12 post comes up under "vitamin A antidote" but not "vitamin A remedy".
And yes, after reading all of Grant's stuff, I spent time on the forum, and almost never used the search feature, which is too limited for my taste.
Often times, I also just want to scroll the forum without thinking about a purpose in mind, and just see if there's any good stuff in the queue.
I do keep thesaurus and dictionary for that reason. I am so adapted to contrary search engines. I learned that search engines were dumbing us down couple decades ago in a class. In 2010's it became belligerently obvious that searches were deceptive. It was like deposing a dishonest contrary expert witness who was not under oath. If I know the answer, I know I can get to accurate sources, but without previous knowledge of the topic, searches intentionally mislead.
Case in point: it took me a week of 18 hours a day online to drill down through to Grant. While drilling around on symptoms for my problem, my first hints were what Sergey Brin's monster was avoiding. I suspected vitamin A from decades reading WAPF and remembering books about polar explorers' diets and failures. I only hit paydirt when I searched articles debunking hypervitaminosis A. I knew I found a working thread when I found Chris Masterjohn and his criticisms of everyone who thought Grant and Garrett might be on to something.
So I never found a site I trusted enough to randomly scroll through. The only sites I put time into, I made a point of reading everything that comes across. I am more than a little familiar with mind numbing drugs of choice like youtube. Learned early on that left to its own devices, algorithms uniformly devolve to porn and all the darkest worst ideas imaginable.
It never occurred to me that someone would come to a forum without specific searches in mind.
As to links posted without explanations, this is the same mindset as asking questions. Sometimes (more like almost all the time) I am not playing the contrary algorithm and am just asking a question. Or posting a link to see what other people think of it. The opinions and questions that come up about a link in response on this forum are necessarily going to be vastly more insightful than on someone else's sight. And in radically different ways. Post a link about cancer's connections to pharma / pesticide / government / medical industry cartels on twitter and count on swarms of trolls throwing chaff supporting Fraudci. And a few disguised trolls throwing wild accusations about cartels that are not remotely possible.
Quote from Joe2 on March 22, 2026, 5:18 amAs to links posted without explanations, this is the same mindset as asking questions. Sometimes (more like almost all the time) I am not playing the contrary algorithm and am just asking a question. Or posting a link to see what other people think of it. The opinions and questions that come up about a link in response on this forum are necessarily going to be vastly more insightful than on someone else's sight. And in radically different ways. Post a link about cancer's connections to pharma / pesticide / government / medical industry cartels on twitter and count on swarms of trolls throwing chaff supporting Fraudci. And a few disguised trolls throwing wild accusations about cartels that are not remotely possible.
If you have a question to ask, just ask it directly (or add something along "based on that source" and post a link). Posting a link just to see other's reactions seems like borderline spamming/trolling to me. Do you believe we have time/will to read all those links?
As an example I think of a https://ggenereux.blog/discussion/topic/rosacea-and-seb-derm/ thread. While we were discussing an antibiotic treatment with lil chick you made a point about terrain theory. I replied that I don't believe in "terrain only" theory. You then proceeded objecting my opinion and posting links about terrain theory. What does that add to the discussion? I have read those kind of articles twenty years ago, so what? It looks like you play some power games, seeking conflict rather than genuinely wanting to hear someone else's opinion.