I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Charlatans and Opportunists: The Hidden Exploitation in Vitamin A Toxicity Science
Quote from Jessica2 on August 14, 2024, 3:15 pm@joe Ive presented a lot of evidence that you just ignore.
I don't think you actually ever posted one link to one study or article.
All you do is repeat what Garrett says and browbeat and spittle and foam at the mouth at anybody who disagrees.
You are really a joke at this point to me anyway you're quite funny.
again. all ad hominem all the time. I am not on this blog to present studies and articles. There are plenty of those sited on 150 or so livestreams that Garrett has published and posted on youtube for free. He also has done the same on threads on twitter for free. There is also a growing list of folk on LYL, twitter and youtube doing the same thing adding on and "disambiguating" ideas that Garrett is throwing up there.
What I do come here for is to read Grant's updates, the studies and all that he sites and anyone else with pertinent experience that helps me sort out what yet needs to be sorted out.
If I were on this blog to argue with people it would not be to argue whether or not vitamin A dogma is fraud. Grant has more than adequately proven that out. You on the other hand present whatever evidence you want and pretend that Grant is wrong until proven right.
As ever the irony that you come here and are interested here because Grant has been so insightful is lost in the haze that you pretend to support him and these ideas while claiming they are not true.
Go ahead now. Take your turn talking here. Use your ad hominems. Make your wild claims that your are helping people. it would be more plausible if we saw those testimonials.
Quote from Jessica2 on August 14, 2024, 3:42 pm@joe you certainly ARE confused AND unhinged.
Andrew moderates a facebook page that is PUBLIC. Anyone can join, after being approved. Garretts FB page is structured the same way.
I'd suggest that rather than posting long multiple rants that sound ignorant and stupid, counter something we say with a coherent argument backed by a reference of some sort. "Garrett says..." isn't a strong argrument.
Andrew's facebook page is open to anyone that Andrew presents permission to enter. That is not public. In fact it is described on his page as a private group.
What is stupid and ignorant is claiming that facebook group is based on the writings of Grant Genereux while it is obviously contrary to everything Grant has proven solidly.
Why would I need a study or reference when all your writing here is all the evidence I need. When is the last time you presented evidence that anything Grant wrote in his 3 books or any of his posts is anything other than accurate? Instead you claim repeatedly that since you do not believe vitamin A is a toxin and that others do not believe it that well it is ok and good. It is as daft and obvious as claiming to eat a low vitamin A diet while eating a high vitamin A diet.
As ever go ahead have continue having it both ways. That obvious fact in all your comments is all the evidence I need present.
Quote from Jessica2 on August 14, 2024, 3:48 pmYou are hilarious Joe!
On what >particular< items do you disagree with Garrett? You say you do, however I don't think there's any issue you disagree with him on.
Like seriously so funny, all you do is wheeze and scream till I imagine you're red in the face about Andrew and I's intentions and our character and then you say I ad hominem? Do you even understand what that means?
I disagreed with Garrett from the first day I talked with him and he insisted I had isotretinoin induced sacroiliitis. He has worked smart and well to prove me wrong since then. He and one other person who had sacroiliitis 6 months before me. And we have a growing list of people we are proving this to now. You might be surprised how many people with sacroiliitis get proof that retinols cause it and continue to get proofs as I have for 19 months now.
Meanwhile you might do better to read your own criticisms and their meanings before sending.
Ad Hominem Definition
Ad hominem (add HOMM-inn-emm), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is a rhetorical device that involves commenting on or against the individual making an argument rather than on the argument itself. As a result, ad hominem is categorized as a logical fallacy or argumentative error.
The definition of ad hominem has evolved over time. Originally, the term referred to making a point about the opponent’s personal assumptions to show how their argument is unsound. Over time, this changed, and now the term refers to resorting to personal attacks rather than addressing an opponent’s argument. The translation of the term indicates this shift; ad hominem is Latin for “to the person,” but it has been translated as “against the person” over time.
Quote from sand on August 14, 2024, 4:15 pm@joe all your posts make me want to take a long bath in Roundup, and @r-2, come on man, you are right about the charlatans (I think), but you are not coming off as cool talking to Jessica like that. It is totally ok on this forum to think vA is essential, and that not so strict diets are the way to go, actually the evidence is pointing in many directions here. What this thread is about is charlatans. Let’s stick to bashing Great Shit and talk about how Andrew will be elected new pope soon.
Um, please do not bathe in Roundup even though Bayer makes the claim that it is no more harmful than table salt. Please do elaborate why (other than my prolific nature) what it is that bothers you about my writing here.
Why exactly is it totally ok on this forum to think vA is essential? Why are we here if we do not accept the most basic premise on this blog? Sure everyone has their opinion and their right to express it. Ignoring Grant's work or just calling it unconvincing is reason for walking away from this blog, not becoming the 10 most prolific commenters on the blog.
Your friend Garrett is the first to claim that the evidence requires we all approach this from different directions with different approaches. How that makes him a charlatan is beyond my view yet. I have read plenty of complaints about Garrett. While I agree his spirit animal might be a porcupine, I have yet to find fault in his logic. The ultimate test of that logic is the results. He and his consultant staff are getting results. I have had more than a few problems working my way onto a low vitamin A diet. There is always more than one way to get there. Any number of his old members and consultants have provided options that get around difficulties.
I completely sympathize with Jessica and Jenny with the difficulties they faced eating low vitamin A. I doubt I could do what Grant did with zero help from much more experienced mentors. It is unfortunate that Jenny's and Jessica's mentors either did not exist or did not come through for them. Blaming Garrett or whoever else was trying to help at the time does no one any good. Pretending that eating vitamin A will provide positive results down the road will also do no good.
I recognize that people like Grant and me were lucky in that our symptoms were so acute as to be impassable. We were forced to find a way through. It makes it easier to believe in the primary premise of this blog.
Now if all that makes you want a Roundup bath, then whatever. At this point in this conversation I feel safe that bad intent on my part has zero responsibility for that urge. Have a better night.
Quote from Jessica2 on August 14, 2024, 5:46 pmQuote from Joe on August 14, 2024, 4:41 pmQuote from Jessica2 on August 14, 2024, 2:56 pmOkay now you can toy around with your word games right? we know that me saying I had covid twice and you saying but your vaccinated meant that I'm a idiot that got vaccinated and got covid twice anyways, that's what the point you wanted to make was. But I didn't get vaccinated so you can shove that one where the sun doesn't shine. We're in an alternative Health Website here and I'm guessing most people are NOT vaccinated.
You would be guessing wrong. Or as wrong as someone else who would guess that most people on a website dedicated to and proving well that retinols are toxic would be avoiding eating retinols.
I was talking to @r-2 here Joe.
And it wasn't any of his business what my vaccine status is, and if I get booted for using a bleeped out swear word, so be it, I stand by that statement.
It also is none of my business whether anyone else here is vaccinated, but I think you're wrong; I have a feeling most people here are not and I would bet money on that.
Same as I would have bet when I started reading Grant's blog that the vast majority of people here eat a low vitamin A diet.
Quote from Jessica2 on August 14, 2024, 5:46 pmQuote from Joe on August 14, 2024, 4:41 pmQuote from Jessica2 on August 14, 2024, 2:56 pmOkay now you can toy around with your word games right? we know that me saying I had covid twice and you saying but your vaccinated meant that I'm a idiot that got vaccinated and got covid twice anyways, that's what the point you wanted to make was. But I didn't get vaccinated so you can shove that one where the sun doesn't shine. We're in an alternative Health Website here and I'm guessing most people are NOT vaccinated.
You would be guessing wrong. Or as wrong as someone else who would guess that most people on a website dedicated to and proving well that retinols are toxic would be avoiding eating retinols.
I was talking to @r-2 here Joe.
And it wasn't any of his business what my vaccine status is, and if I get booted for using a bleeped out swear word, so be it, I stand by that statement.
It also is none of my business whether anyone else here is vaccinated, but I think you're wrong; I have a feeling most people here are not and I would bet money on that.
Edit: PS, I've had 4 years of Latin in high school and 2 in college and can pray many prayers in Latin and have read many passages in original Latin. I know the difference between classical and medieval pronunciations. Thank you for your cute lil lesson there.
Edit. Proud for you. Now please address topics raised and quit attacking the character of those raising them.
I doubt R-2 cares or cared whether or not you are vaccinated. You indeed made his point though and still are. Perhaps sometime soon you will grok that some folk on here are not going to sit back and let you have it both ways.
If you are here because you feel vitamin A is a toxin, then get help and give help on how best to reduce, remove and deplete that toxin. If you are here because you feel vitamin A is a misunderstood nutrient, then fine, state your case and give us all a blog site where we can follow your line of reasoning and advice on how best to use that nutrient and the interested parties will follow.
By being one of Andrew's "top 10 commentators" you are convincing no one of anything. How many of us, 5000 blog members do you think came here because we were interested in learning more about how wrong Grant is and has been for 10 years?
Quote from Jessica2 on August 14, 2024, 6:47 pm@joe It's really not the same thing. At all.
One thing failed to meet your expectations; so another completely different thing would as well?
Seems like a logical fallacy to me.
Naming a thing is not proof on understanding that thing. How is it a logical fallacy to believe that very few people on this blog would fall for pharma grift on a fraudulent contagion and that the same very few people on this blgo would fall for decades of Rockefeller funding nutritional science fraud?
Quote from Frank on August 15, 2024, 12:31 pmQuote from Joe on August 14, 2024, 6:30 pmI have read plenty of complaints about Garrett. While I agree his spirit animal might be a porcupine...
Garrett spirit animal is lure fish
Kind of looks like him. What is the proper name? "Lure fish" is getting search results on how to fish.
Hi @joe, @jessica2,
Sorry for the late responses, I don’t have time these days to follow what’s going on here on the forum.
Joe.
Jessica2 is not a troll, and please don’t accuse her of that. She has been here a long time and has contributed a lot to the discussion.
She has her views, and as I’ve stated, all views are welcome. Personal attacks are not. We need allies here, not enemies. IMO almost nothing in science is ever solved by just debating it, rather we need to rely on experimental evidence.
I understand Jessica’s position, and partially agree with it too.
RE:
“I understand many people here think VA is an issue. I thought it was mine at one point too. But a point I've repeatedly said is that if vitamin A is a poison across the board to all life forms we all should across the board get better when we cut its forms out of our diet.”
Yes, the success rate here is very low. For people making a full recovery from a chronic disease condition, it might be in the low single digits. From past surveys we saw a significantly higher percentage of people at least seeing an improvement in their health.
When I first started on this project I too expected to see that: “we all should across the board get better when we cut its forms out of our diet.”
But, the reality is that is not at all the case, and the process has turned out to be more complicated.
Moreover, there are many people who actually experience worse health. But, we also now know why that is happening. It’s because so many people have reported that their vA serum levels actually go up after starting a vA elimination diet. I think this is more strong evidence to indicate the significant toxicity of vA esters, something that Mawson has stated in many of his papers.
However, the fact that too few people are seeing results does not at all prove that the theory of vA toxicity is wrong. Rather it is just proving that recovering from it is extremely slow and problematic. And, yes, it is hugely disappointing, and clearly indicates that we have a long way to go in somehow making the process more reliable. Relying on diet alone is clearly not cutting it.
But, we are also seeing success stories. I’ve been getting quite a few of them directly via email, and mostly from people who are not here on this forum. Also, apparently there are quite a few of them showing up on the Ray Peat forum as well. So, the real-world results to date are mixed, and kind of all over the map.
There are also some interesting patterns showing up as well. One is that a lot of people are reporting huge improvements, if not fully recovering, from long-term chronic anxiety and depression. A second observation is that it looks like younger men are seeing improvements faster and more often than do women.
On one hand, I’d like to say that if people can stick to it long enough they’ll eventually see results. On the other hand no one wants to wait 5-10 years either.
However, for all of our setbacks and low success rates there are indeed people not only recovering from long term disease, I do dare say that they are also being cured from their chronic diseases. Simply because they’ve removed the root cause.
However, our low success rate is far higher than any pharmaceutical drug has ever been.
Something rather amazing to consider is that in the last 100 year history of the pharmaceutical industry they’ve never produced a single drug that actually outright, or even over the long-term, actually cures a non-infectious disease. That’s correct, after 100+ years, and trillions of dollars in cumulative revenue, and with about 20,000 drug products on the market, their success rate in curing a disease is a flat 0.0%.
So, by comparison, I think we are doing OK. I’m confident that with more time we’ll be seeing a significant improvement in the success rate.