I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.

DiscussionLet's talk about it: The science of itCharlatans and Opportunists: The …

Please to create posts and topics.

Charlatans and Opportunists: The Hidden Exploitation in Vitamin A Toxicity Science

#21 · August 14, 2024, 1:26 pm

Quote from sand on August 14, 2024, 1:20 pm

@r-2 don’t you dare post private facebook group information on this forum! You are a bully! They didn’t really mean what they said. I’m glad Andrew is so tough and is standing up to you!
(Thanks for confirming everything I thought!)

I'm confused (and maybe a bit autistic!) are you being sarcastic?

sand and Deleted user have reacted to this post.

#22 · August 14, 2024, 1:39 pm

Quote from lil chick on August 14, 2024, 11:54 am

I'm glad Andrew B is here!

I think there is a place for low-medium VA people here, who understand the tradeoffs they are making.

There is no zero-VA diet on planet Earth.

There is also no reduced or low vA diet on planet Earth for people who try to eat vitamin A foods.

I am glad Andrew B is alive. I have had it with the pretense that he gives due respect and diligence to anything Grant and Garrett have done. Please show me the long list of testimonials of people who are doing so much better in life now that they are adding vitamin A foods back in to their diet. Please show me that long list of people 1, 2 and 3 years in on their pseudo low vitamin A diets.

#23 · August 14, 2024, 1:41 pm

Quote from Janelle525 on August 14, 2024, 1:26 pm

Quote from sand on August 14, 2024, 1:20 pm

@r-2 don’t you dare post private facebook group information on this forum! You are a bully! They didn’t really mean what they said. I’m glad Andrew is so tough and is standing up to you!
(Thanks for confirming everything I thought!)

I'm confused (and maybe a bit autistic!) are you being sarcastic?

Also confused here.

@sand

What are you saying here?

#24 · August 14, 2024, 1:45 pm

Quote from Janelle525 on August 14, 2024, 1:26 pm

Quote from sand on August 14, 2024, 1:20 pm

@r-2 don’t you dare post private facebook group information on this forum! You are a bully! They didn’t really mean what they said. I’m glad Andrew is so tough and is standing up to you!
(Thanks for confirming everything I thought!)

I'm confused (and maybe a bit autistic!) are you being sarcastic?

I like both r-2 and people on the spectrum

Deleted user has reacted to this post.

#25 · August 14, 2024, 1:53 pm

Quote from Deleted user on August 14, 2024, 1:53 pm

Quote from r on July 20, 2024, 2:12 am

I have been on this Vitamin A reduction journey long before I found this forum. In 2016, I poisoned myself with supplements and food, and it was only in 2020 that I discovered this forum and Grant’s story and hypothesis. While the hypothesis is still one, one thing is clear: a lot of Vitamin A can cause problems. That is why there are more than 5,000 members in this forum, sharing their own anecdotes, including mine. My own toxicity led me to understand how I faced numerous health issues since childhood when I was sub clinically Vitamin A toxic.

The benefits of Vitamin A reduction are undeniable. However, it's crucial to address how some people have exploited this movement for personal financial gain, misleading others in the process.

First, it is evident that Grant never intended to profit from this. He could have, but he didn’t. That is why he never introduced any “innovation” to speed up the process or rationalize the theory to upsell products like others are doing nowadays. When he did not know something, he simply said, “I don’t know about it,” and was clear about the path: do whatever works for you.

Grant discovered the issues with Vitamin A not by reading papers but through simple observation.

I must highlight a group currently corrupting the simplicity of this Vitamin A reduction idea, misleading people to buy their products and services.

The first group is the Vitamin A Toxicity Facebook group . They rely on Meri Arthur for research. This group claims that the problem lies in the metabolism of Vitamin A, rather than excess of vitamin A itself

Before I continue, let me quote Nassim Taleb:

“Mathematics is rigorously learned through practice, and yet it can be used as a form of elegant fraud, a grandiose marketing exercise. The danger is when it is misused by the 'snake oil' salesmen of finance.”

Meri Arthur is a prime example of this intellectual jugglery. She meticulously scours PubMed and Google, connecting dots to support her theories, often by dubious means. This elaborate performance is not just for the sake of intellectual pursuit but is a calculated effort to gain popularity and attract more clients to subscribe to her services.



By presenting her theories with an air of intellectualism, she taps into the common fascination with complex, seemingly magical explanations. This manipulation leverages the psychological bias of "intellectualism," making her theories appear credible and authoritative. The ultimate purpose of this intellectual sleight of hand is to create a sense of expertise and reliability, thereby convincing people to trust her and buy into her services.

I mean, after 5 hours of detailing the "science of Vitamin A toxicity on youtube ," I expect her to present a cure as simple as saying, "Oh, there's a screw that needs to be tightened in your system, and you will be fine." But instead, it leads to no conclusion.

Nutritional science and research are notoriously unreliable. My university experience showed me how easily PhD candidates could manipulate data to publish papers. Researchers face immense pressure to publish, leading to exaggeration or fabrication of results. Meri Arthur exploits this inherent unreliability, using it to her advantage to create a web of convincing yet fundamentally flawed theories.



The common person, often unable to discern the quality of research, becomes an easy target for this sophisticated trickery. This intellectual facade not only builds her reputation but also serves as a powerful marketing tool, drawing in clients who are impressed by her apparent expertise and willingness to challenge conventional wisdom.



In reality, this is nothing more than a grandiose marketing exercise, a deliberate effort to manipulate people into believing in her theories and subscribing to her services. It is a clear example of how intellectualism can be weaponized to exploit the trust and curiosity of individuals seeking answers and solutions to their health concerns.

As a computer researcher, I know many journals and conferences publish bogus research, compromising integrity for profit.

The Sokal Hoax, where physicist Alan Sokal published nonsensical papers to expose the lack of rigor in certain academic fields, illustrates this point well. Imagine how many of the papers Meri Arthur uses to connect her dots are similarly bogus.

Using public research to rationalize anything can be highly misleading. For example, I could gather enough “evidence” to prove both that smoking is beneficial and harmful. This is the same sophisticated trickery used by Meri Arthur and Garrett Smith to rationalize their claims.

The institutionalization of the scientific community was often about manipulating people into believing lies. Behind this manipulation is the capitalistic idea of creating new markets. These opportunists saw an opportunity but had to tweak the original idea to make it distinct and sellable, regardless of its validity.

Grant succeeded because he didn’t believe the original Wolbach and Howe study, which claimed that Vitamin A is essential. He observed and thought creatively. In contrast, Meri Arthur and her followers treat PubMed as if it were the bible, leading to a convoluted and often inconclusive forum content, designed to dazzle and convince viewers to become clients and buy products.

A word of caution and advice: I have been on this journey long before these opportunists. I didn’t study “nutrition” but rather gathered wisdom that leads to recovery if done right.

Here are some key points I’ve learned from my health journey:

“If it ain't broke, don't fix it” Appreciate and maintain functional systems and practices, avoiding unnecessary changes that could lead to harm. I was in great health until I messed it up by listening to “internet advice.” If something works, don’t change it.

Grant followed this principle, sticking with what worked for him.

Listen to your body Pay close attention to the signals your body sends regarding hunger, fullness, fatigue, discomfort, and other cues. Don’t ignore these cues. If a change in diet or supplement doesn’t feel right, stop. Don’t listen to theorists like Meri Arthur or Garrett Smith about detox symptoms.

Grant succeeded by listening to his body.

Don’t be greedy Too much of a good thing can be harmful. If you feel good eating 200 grams of meat a day, 2 pounds won’t make you a superman. Nature requires patience and perseverance, not greed.

Stop reading medical/nutritional advice; the nomenclature game is a PSYOP (Psychological Operation) Categorizing medical conditions or symptoms might be useful, but it eventually leads to abstract mental models of disease. Nomenclature is a linguistic weapon, leading to medicalization, dependency, and anxiety.

Grant had eczema, which he saw as a rash indicating something bad inside trying to come out. Similarly, I developed colitis from eating seeds, and I know it was damage to my intestinal lining. I don’t take cancer-causing medicine for it; I listen to my body and eat what feels right.

In conclusion, wisdom and vigilance will lead to recovery. Food is just fuel.

Well said lad. Not sure why you lumped Garrett in with Arthur. Garrett has given Grant his due diligence and respect. Garrett is a clinician working with people trying to figure out how best to apply what Grant has proven out. I have yet to find one aspect of Grant's experience and work that Garrett is contrary to or profiteering off of.

For what it is worth, breaking ground and working contrary to well financed science frauds is one thing. Working clinically with folk to help them apply that knowledge is another. Garrett is self tests every idea he brings to bear here. Without him, I would have done the same as Grant and missed out on the huge help that activated charcoal brings to this process. Believe me, Garrett did not make huge profits from getting me to grok the value of charcoal - unless you count that he gained another loyal testimonial for his list of clients.

Quote from r on July 20, 2024, 2:12 am

I have been on this Vitamin A reduction journey long before I found this forum. In 2016, I poisoned myself with supplements and food, and it was only in 2020 that I discovered this forum and Grant’s story and hypothesis. While the hypothesis is still one, one thing is clear: a lot of Vitamin A can cause problems. That is why there are more than 5,000 members in this forum, sharing their own anecdotes, including mine. My own toxicity led me to understand how I faced numerous health issues since childhood when I was sub clinically Vitamin A toxic.

The benefits of Vitamin A reduction are undeniable. However, it's crucial to address how some people have exploited this movement for personal financial gain, misleading others in the process.

First, it is evident that Grant never intended to profit from this. He could have, but he didn’t. That is why he never introduced any “innovation” to speed up the process or rationalize the theory to upsell products like others are doing nowadays. When he did not know something, he simply said, “I don’t know about it,” and was clear about the path: do whatever works for you.

Grant discovered the issues with Vitamin A not by reading papers but through simple observation.

I must highlight a group currently corrupting the simplicity of this Vitamin A reduction idea, misleading people to buy their products and services.

The first group is the Vitamin A Toxicity Facebook group . They rely on Meri Arthur for research. This group claims that the problem lies in the metabolism of Vitamin A, rather than excess of vitamin A itself

Before I continue, let me quote Nassim Taleb:

“Mathematics is rigorously learned through practice, and yet it can be used as a form of elegant fraud, a grandiose marketing exercise. The danger is when it is misused by the 'snake oil' salesmen of finance.”

Meri Arthur is a prime example of this intellectual jugglery. She meticulously scours PubMed and Google, connecting dots to support her theories, often by dubious means. This elaborate performance is not just for the sake of intellectual pursuit but is a calculated effort to gain popularity and attract more clients to subscribe to her services.



By presenting her theories with an air of intellectualism, she taps into the common fascination with complex, seemingly magical explanations. This manipulation leverages the psychological bias of "intellectualism," making her theories appear credible and authoritative. The ultimate purpose of this intellectual sleight of hand is to create a sense of expertise and reliability, thereby convincing people to trust her and buy into her services.

I mean, after 5 hours of detailing the "science of Vitamin A toxicity on youtube ," I expect her to present a cure as simple as saying, "Oh, there's a screw that needs to be tightened in your system, and you will be fine." But instead, it leads to no conclusion.

Nutritional science and research are notoriously unreliable. My university experience showed me how easily PhD candidates could manipulate data to publish papers. Researchers face immense pressure to publish, leading to exaggeration or fabrication of results. Meri Arthur exploits this inherent unreliability, using it to her advantage to create a web of convincing yet fundamentally flawed theories.



The common person, often unable to discern the quality of research, becomes an easy target for this sophisticated trickery. This intellectual facade not only builds her reputation but also serves as a powerful marketing tool, drawing in clients who are impressed by her apparent expertise and willingness to challenge conventional wisdom.



In reality, this is nothing more than a grandiose marketing exercise, a deliberate effort to manipulate people into believing in her theories and subscribing to her services. It is a clear example of how intellectualism can be weaponized to exploit the trust and curiosity of individuals seeking answers and solutions to their health concerns.

As a computer researcher, I know many journals and conferences publish bogus research, compromising integrity for profit.

The Sokal Hoax, where physicist Alan Sokal published nonsensical papers to expose the lack of rigor in certain academic fields, illustrates this point well. Imagine how many of the papers Meri Arthur uses to connect her dots are similarly bogus.

Using public research to rationalize anything can be highly misleading. For example, I could gather enough “evidence” to prove both that smoking is beneficial and harmful. This is the same sophisticated trickery used by Meri Arthur and Garrett Smith to rationalize their claims.

The institutionalization of the scientific community was often about manipulating people into believing lies. Behind this manipulation is the capitalistic idea of creating new markets. These opportunists saw an opportunity but had to tweak the original idea to make it distinct and sellable, regardless of its validity.

Grant succeeded because he didn’t believe the original Wolbach and Howe study, which claimed that Vitamin A is essential. He observed and thought creatively. In contrast, Meri Arthur and her followers treat PubMed as if it were the bible, leading to a convoluted and often inconclusive forum content, designed to dazzle and convince viewers to become clients and buy products.

A word of caution and advice: I have been on this journey long before these opportunists. I didn’t study “nutrition” but rather gathered wisdom that leads to recovery if done right.

Here are some key points I’ve learned from my health journey:

“If it ain't broke, don't fix it” Appreciate and maintain functional systems and practices, avoiding unnecessary changes that could lead to harm. I was in great health until I messed it up by listening to “internet advice.” If something works, don’t change it.

Grant followed this principle, sticking with what worked for him.

Listen to your body Pay close attention to the signals your body sends regarding hunger, fullness, fatigue, discomfort, and other cues. Don’t ignore these cues. If a change in diet or supplement doesn’t feel right, stop. Don’t listen to theorists like Meri Arthur or Garrett Smith about detox symptoms.

Grant succeeded by listening to his body.

Don’t be greedy Too much of a good thing can be harmful. If you feel good eating 200 grams of meat a day, 2 pounds won’t make you a superman. Nature requires patience and perseverance, not greed.

Stop reading medical/nutritional advice; the nomenclature game is a PSYOP (Psychological Operation) Categorizing medical conditions or symptoms might be useful, but it eventually leads to abstract mental models of disease. Nomenclature is a linguistic weapon, leading to medicalization, dependency, and anxiety.

Grant had eczema, which he saw as a rash indicating something bad inside trying to come out. Similarly, I developed colitis from eating seeds, and I know it was damage to my intestinal lining. I don’t take cancer-causing medicine for it; I listen to my body and eat what feels right.

In conclusion, wisdom and vigilance will lead to recovery. Food is just fuel.

Well said lad. Not sure why you lumped Garrett in with Arthur. Garrett has given Grant his due diligence and respect. Garrett is a clinician working with people trying to figure out how best to apply what Grant has proven out. I have yet to find one aspect of Grant's experience and work that Garrett is contrary to or profiteering off of.

For what it is worth, breaking ground and working contrary to well financed science frauds is one thing. Working clinically with folk to help them apply that knowledge is another. Garrett is self tests every idea he brings to bear here. Without him, I would have done the same as Grant and missed out on the huge help that activated charcoal brings to this process. Believe me, Garrett did not make huge profits from getting me to grok the value of charcoal - unless you count that he gained another loyal testimonial for his list of clients.

#26 · August 14, 2024, 2:00 pm

Quote from Deleted user on August 14, 2024, 2:00 pm

Quote from Hermes on July 20, 2024, 4:07 am

A lot of big words here. Your analysis may well apply to the medical field, to big pharma, but not to a no-name like Meri Arthur. If anything, she suffers from Mother Theresa syndrome: helping everyone at the expense of her own well-being. She may get lost in the scientific details, she may get sidetracked, who doesn't? But making a lot of money from her efforts is certainly not her motive. She once answered questions I had and sent me this multi-page answer. For free. Garrett Smith seems to be more carnal, you could accuse him of monetizing the work of Grant Genereux and Karen Hurd. But again, even he, who has alienated quite a few people who have been active on this forum, spits out more truth than lies. If anything, he's an opportunist. His biggest weakness is his confrontational personality and his black and white thinking. He still can't get over the fact that eggs are beneficial in a vitamin A deficient diet. And for every success story with the original low-vitamin diet that Grant worked out for himself, there's someone like me who, years later, hasn't made much progress with the same diet. Clearly, it's not as simple and straightforward as tightening a few screws, at least not for me and many others who started eating eggs again after Andrew Baird presented solid research and detailed his own experiences. There's more to vitamin A depletion than just avoiding vitamin A.

There is a lot more to vitamin A depletion than just avoiding vitamin A. That is what Garrett is working and has worked out for himself and so many. It is different for each of us.

On top of all that, to claim that eating eggs is helping you along the path of a low vitamin A diet defines insanity. For sure it is giving you symptomatic relief. It is not reducing your vitamin A intake. It is not improving your vitamin A detoxification.

How many times have alcoholics gotten relief by drinking alcohol. And of course in some cases alcoholics absolutely need to drink alcohol. But alcoholics who pretend to not drink alcohol while drinking it are applying junkie's logic. Sooner or later we all learn this lesson. I hope it comes before the addiction forces you to learn the hardest way.

Quote from Hermes on July 20, 2024, 4:07 am

A lot of big words here. Your analysis may well apply to the medical field, to big pharma, but not to a no-name like Meri Arthur. If anything, she suffers from Mother Theresa syndrome: helping everyone at the expense of her own well-being. She may get lost in the scientific details, she may get sidetracked, who doesn't? But making a lot of money from her efforts is certainly not her motive. She once answered questions I had and sent me this multi-page answer. For free. Garrett Smith seems to be more carnal, you could accuse him of monetizing the work of Grant Genereux and Karen Hurd. But again, even he, who has alienated quite a few people who have been active on this forum, spits out more truth than lies. If anything, he's an opportunist. His biggest weakness is his confrontational personality and his black and white thinking. He still can't get over the fact that eggs are beneficial in a vitamin A deficient diet. And for every success story with the original low-vitamin diet that Grant worked out for himself, there's someone like me who, years later, hasn't made much progress with the same diet. Clearly, it's not as simple and straightforward as tightening a few screws, at least not for me and many others who started eating eggs again after Andrew Baird presented solid research and detailed his own experiences. There's more to vitamin A depletion than just avoiding vitamin A.

There is a lot more to vitamin A depletion than just avoiding vitamin A. That is what Garrett is working and has worked out for himself and so many. It is different for each of us.

On top of all that, to claim that eating eggs is helping you along the path of a low vitamin A diet defines insanity. For sure it is giving you symptomatic relief. It is not reducing your vitamin A intake. It is not improving your vitamin A detoxification.

How many times have alcoholics gotten relief by drinking alcohol. And of course in some cases alcoholics absolutely need to drink alcohol. But alcoholics who pretend to not drink alcohol while drinking it are applying junkie's logic. Sooner or later we all learn this lesson. I hope it comes before the addiction forces you to learn the hardest way.

#27 · August 14, 2024, 2:06 pm

Quote from Deleted user on August 14, 2024, 2:06 pm

Quote from Andrew B on July 21, 2024, 12:01 am

Meredith Arthur has a masters degree in dietetics. She was very close to going on and doing a PhD but for the need to look after her daughter who has some genetic issues. Her daughter is the reason she is doing this research. She is also very grateful for the advice about eggs which has led to numerous improvements for her daughter and her few clients. She lost her job for being so determined about the vitamin A metabolism problem. Meredith Arthur explains the why for how my recommended diet works. She also has corrected something about excess nitrates and nitric oxide. She's also confirmed with real patients and detailed tests that certain antioxidants help. She would also acknowledge that Jenny Jones PhD (genetics) has been a huge help with her hypothesis. Jenny has been trained in nutrition. We also know how helpful Jenny has been across all forums in the last 6 years then suffered badly with the too low vitamin A approach. So Vitamin A Toxicity group is a collaborative approach with checks and balances. We do our best with very few paying customers especially once they've paid other practitioners comparatively huge sums of money.

Meredith Arthur's hypothesis leans heavily on a Professor at Rutger's University who also worked at Sloane Kettering in immunology. He at first glance thinks it's a plausible hypothesis. Meri is forever checking with Jenny and turns down clients because she is too busy with her daughter. We dont have any products to sell. I think this is a complete misrepresentation of what our group has being trying to achieve.

Each video by Meri has solutions in it. We've been implementing and testing those solutions for over 2 years now.

Am glad for you, Jenny and Meredith. Good on you. Do your research. Help your clients. Stop wasting everyone's time calling it a low vitamin A approach. Stop grifting off a blog that proves vitamin A is a toxin not a nutrient. Just because it is not so simple to just stop taking an addictive toxin does not make it a nutrient nor any less of a toxin. Your whole premise here is laughable with ever post Grant makes proving your theories flat out wrong. It is not a vitamin's metabolic problem you are dealing with. It is an addictive toxin's nature that you are dancing around.

Go do your work on a website that you build. Sistering on to a blog proving the lies basic to your premise is hypocrisy.

Quote from Andrew B on July 21, 2024, 12:01 am

Meredith Arthur has a masters degree in dietetics. She was very close to going on and doing a PhD but for the need to look after her daughter who has some genetic issues. Her daughter is the reason she is doing this research. She is also very grateful for the advice about eggs which has led to numerous improvements for her daughter and her few clients. She lost her job for being so determined about the vitamin A metabolism problem. Meredith Arthur explains the why for how my recommended diet works. She also has corrected something about excess nitrates and nitric oxide. She's also confirmed with real patients and detailed tests that certain antioxidants help. She would also acknowledge that Jenny Jones PhD (genetics) has been a huge help with her hypothesis. Jenny has been trained in nutrition. We also know how helpful Jenny has been across all forums in the last 6 years then suffered badly with the too low vitamin A approach. So Vitamin A Toxicity group is a collaborative approach with checks and balances. We do our best with very few paying customers especially once they've paid other practitioners comparatively huge sums of money.

Meredith Arthur's hypothesis leans heavily on a Professor at Rutger's University who also worked at Sloane Kettering in immunology. He at first glance thinks it's a plausible hypothesis. Meri is forever checking with Jenny and turns down clients because she is too busy with her daughter. We dont have any products to sell. I think this is a complete misrepresentation of what our group has being trying to achieve.

Each video by Meri has solutions in it. We've been implementing and testing those solutions for over 2 years now.

Am glad for you, Jenny and Meredith. Good on you. Do your research. Help your clients. Stop wasting everyone's time calling it a low vitamin A approach. Stop grifting off a blog that proves vitamin A is a toxin not a nutrient. Just because it is not so simple to just stop taking an addictive toxin does not make it a nutrient nor any less of a toxin. Your whole premise here is laughable with ever post Grant makes proving your theories flat out wrong. It is not a vitamin's metabolic problem you are dealing with. It is an addictive toxin's nature that you are dancing around.

Go do your work on a website that you build. Sistering on to a blog proving the lies basic to your premise is hypocrisy.

#28 · August 14, 2024, 2:07 pm

Quote from Deleted user on August 14, 2024, 2:07 pm

Quote from r on July 29, 2024, 12:58 pm

Quote from Andrew B on July 21, 2024, 12:01 am

Meredith Arthur has a masters degree in dietetics. She was very close to going on and doing a PhD but for the need to look after her daughter who has some genetic issues. Her daughter is the reason she is doing this research. She is also very grateful for the advice about eggs which has led to numerous improvements for her daughter and her few clients. She lost her job for being so determined about the vitamin A metabolism problem. Meredith Arthur explains the why for how my recommended diet works. She also has corrected something about excess nitrates and nitric oxide. She's also confirmed with real patients and detailed tests that certain antioxidants help. She would also acknowledge that Jenny Jones PhD (genetics) has been a huge help with her hypothesis. Jenny has been trained in nutrition. We also know how helpful Jenny has been across all forums in the last 6 years then suffered badly with the too low vitamin A approach. So Vitamin A Toxicity group is a collaborative approach with checks and balances. We do our best with very few paying customers especially once they've paid other practitioners comparatively huge sums of money.

Meredith Arthur's hypothesis leans heavily on a Professor at Rutger's University who also worked at Sloane Kettering in immunology. He at first glance thinks it's a plausible hypothesis. Meri is forever checking with Jenny and turns down clients because she is too busy with her daughter. We dont have any products to sell. I think this is a complete misrepresentation of what our group has being trying to achieve.

Each video by Meri has solutions in it. We've been implementing and testing those solutions for over 2 years now.

Well, I just don't understand the cognitive dissonance in your thinking. You predict that Grant's success could have been due to the avoidance of plant toxins while acknowledging that plants have toxins to which we are supposed to have reactions. But then, on your forum, you point out that Grant has metabolic issues because he can't tolerate or digest some of the plant matter that contains toxins.

I mean, it all makes no sense. By your rationale, if I consume cyanide and obviously die from it, would you claim that I died because of my metabolic issues?

Your forum is full of desperate attempts to disapprove of Grant's experiments (based on random contents from journals) only to nitpick some of the issues.

If I consume raw kidney beans which can can lead to food poisoning, including symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea . Do you think I have metabolic issue ? or maybe we are not supposed to consume certain "so called" foods .

Again and again. Well said and spot on.

Quote from r on July 29, 2024, 12:58 pm

Quote from Andrew B on July 21, 2024, 12:01 am

Meredith Arthur has a masters degree in dietetics. She was very close to going on and doing a PhD but for the need to look after her daughter who has some genetic issues. Her daughter is the reason she is doing this research. She is also very grateful for the advice about eggs which has led to numerous improvements for her daughter and her few clients. She lost her job for being so determined about the vitamin A metabolism problem. Meredith Arthur explains the why for how my recommended diet works. She also has corrected something about excess nitrates and nitric oxide. She's also confirmed with real patients and detailed tests that certain antioxidants help. She would also acknowledge that Jenny Jones PhD (genetics) has been a huge help with her hypothesis. Jenny has been trained in nutrition. We also know how helpful Jenny has been across all forums in the last 6 years then suffered badly with the too low vitamin A approach. So Vitamin A Toxicity group is a collaborative approach with checks and balances. We do our best with very few paying customers especially once they've paid other practitioners comparatively huge sums of money.

Meredith Arthur's hypothesis leans heavily on a Professor at Rutger's University who also worked at Sloane Kettering in immunology. He at first glance thinks it's a plausible hypothesis. Meri is forever checking with Jenny and turns down clients because she is too busy with her daughter. We dont have any products to sell. I think this is a complete misrepresentation of what our group has being trying to achieve.

Each video by Meri has solutions in it. We've been implementing and testing those solutions for over 2 years now.

Well, I just don't understand the cognitive dissonance in your thinking. You predict that Grant's success could have been due to the avoidance of plant toxins while acknowledging that plants have toxins to which we are supposed to have reactions. But then, on your forum, you point out that Grant has metabolic issues because he can't tolerate or digest some of the plant matter that contains toxins.

I mean, it all makes no sense. By your rationale, if I consume cyanide and obviously die from it, would you claim that I died because of my metabolic issues?

Your forum is full of desperate attempts to disapprove of Grant's experiments (based on random contents from journals) only to nitpick some of the issues.

If I consume raw kidney beans which can can lead to food poisoning, including symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea . Do you think I have metabolic issue ? or maybe we are not supposed to consume certain "so called" foods .

Again and again. Well said and spot on.

r has reacted to this post.

#29 · August 14, 2024, 2:11 pm

Quote from Deleted user on August 14, 2024, 2:11 pm

Quote from Griffin on July 30, 2024, 1:44 pm

Figured I would way in since I am a newcomer to the low vitamin A diet. I came across Grants work this winter as I was continuing to struggle with cystic acne and digestive issues. His e Books were very helpful in giving me an idea on how excess vitamin A could be causing my skin issues. Up until this point I really had not come across any theory that could explain why my skin is experiencing so much inflammation. I have tried paleo, AIP, keto and nose to tail carnivore, but never saw improvement in skin issues.

When I first started the diet I was looking for more information and found my way over to the Love your Liver course. Unfortunately a lot of the suggestions I have gotten from that group seem to be making my skin worse. So far I have had to discontinue the majority of supplements they recommend as well as parts of the diet; mainly whole grains and beans. Im not saying Dr Smith is wrong on everything, but he makes some pretty bold claims regarding toxic bile theory and vitamin A. My skin has been getting pretty bad the last few months. They keep telling me its just detox and my skin will get better eventually. This could very well be true, but its hard to see my skin get worse than it was before. I am not on facebook so I can't weigh in on that group, but I would caution anyone taking Dr Smiths advice to tailor your approach to meet your current health challenges. My main critique of him is that he does not seem very open minded to there being other causes of disease besides toxic bile theory. His dismissive attitude may turn people away from this diet. I understand and respect why Grant does not engage on social media, but I think his approach to all of this has been the most helpful. As R mentioned he is not afraid to admit when he doesn't know something and is always open to new ideas. This attitude/approach is definitely lacking in Dr Smiths following.

Overall I am still hopeful some version of low vitamin A can help heal my skin

I am one of the knuckleheads on LYL. Do you mind telling what are the skin issues and what are you doing for them?

Quote from Griffin on July 30, 2024, 1:44 pm

Figured I would way in since I am a newcomer to the low vitamin A diet. I came across Grants work this winter as I was continuing to struggle with cystic acne and digestive issues. His e Books were very helpful in giving me an idea on how excess vitamin A could be causing my skin issues. Up until this point I really had not come across any theory that could explain why my skin is experiencing so much inflammation. I have tried paleo, AIP, keto and nose to tail carnivore, but never saw improvement in skin issues.

When I first started the diet I was looking for more information and found my way over to the Love your Liver course. Unfortunately a lot of the suggestions I have gotten from that group seem to be making my skin worse. So far I have had to discontinue the majority of supplements they recommend as well as parts of the diet; mainly whole grains and beans. Im not saying Dr Smith is wrong on everything, but he makes some pretty bold claims regarding toxic bile theory and vitamin A. My skin has been getting pretty bad the last few months. They keep telling me its just detox and my skin will get better eventually. This could very well be true, but its hard to see my skin get worse than it was before. I am not on facebook so I can't weigh in on that group, but I would caution anyone taking Dr Smiths advice to tailor your approach to meet your current health challenges. My main critique of him is that he does not seem very open minded to there being other causes of disease besides toxic bile theory. His dismissive attitude may turn people away from this diet. I understand and respect why Grant does not engage on social media, but I think his approach to all of this has been the most helpful. As R mentioned he is not afraid to admit when he doesn't know something and is always open to new ideas. This attitude/approach is definitely lacking in Dr Smiths following.

Overall I am still hopeful some version of low vitamin A can help heal my skin

I am one of the knuckleheads on LYL. Do you mind telling what are the skin issues and what are you doing for them?

#30 · August 14, 2024, 2:15 pm

Quote from Jessica2 on July 30, 2024, 3:03 pm

@r-2 I'm going to turn the tables on you and make the point that just because Grant "thinks outside the box" doesn't mean he uncovered or solved anything either. It doesn't mean his claims are valid, as you correctly point out degrees aren't everything either. Is what he's saying true or not? I respect Grant but his hypothesis is far from proven, even he admits this. It is an intriguing experiment that he's in pretty good health after 10 years of beans and rice, but it doesn't necessarily mean VA is poison and unneeded and it doesn't exactly prove his suppositions.

Turn the tables back now please. What does Grant's work prove to you? Or at least indicate to you? What evidence have you shown that indicates any of Grant's theories are not spot on and as close to proven as they need to be?

As ever all you have done on this blog is throw up doubts about Grant's documented experience and stuck with obviously fraudulent mainstream science as if it were proven facts. Please show some skepticism in the right direction for a change.

Charlatans and Opportunists: The Hidden Exploitation in Vitamin A Toxicity Science

Share this:

Like this: