Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 23, 2023, 1:54 pm

@henrik

List the arguments you're referring to.

Off the top of my head, I know I've thoroughly responded to the idea that Vitamin A is a toxin, and I've pointed out the flaws in the claim that Wolbach and Howe's study was completely worthless because of the potential for Vitamin A to exist in the casein (1. I don't see a measure of Vitamin A in the casein used in that particular study, so we don't actually know how much was in it; 2. There are papers I referenced that show it is possible to extract casein in a way that minimizes the presence of Vitamin A, to such an extent that rodents fed that casein on a diet otherwise considered deficient in Vitamin A exhibited poor growth and premature death, thereby apparently confirming the findings of Wolbach and Howe using casein with identified amounts of Vitamin A; 3. there are other studies I've seen that show that symptoms of Vitamin A deficiency are resolved by ingestion of retinoic acid as opposed to retinol, so if the claim is that the Vitamin A in the casein is poisonous because it is converted to retinoic acid by heat treatment, that claim also appears to be false).

Quote from Henrik on August 23, 2023, 2:48 pm

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 23, 2023, 1:54 pm

@henrik

List the arguments you're referring to.

Off the top of my head, I know I've thoroughly responded to the idea that Vitamin A is a toxin, and I've pointed out the flaws in the claim that Wolbach and Howe's study was completely worthless because of the potential for Vitamin A to exist in the casein (1. I don't see a measure of Vitamin A in the casein used in that particular study, so we don't actually know how much was in it; 2. There are papers I referenced that show it is possible to extract casein in a way that minimizes the presence of Vitamin A, to such an extent that rodents fed that casein on a diet otherwise considered deficient in Vitamin A exhibited poor growth and premature death, thereby apparently confirming the findings of Wolbach and Howe using casein with identified amounts of Vitamin A; 3. there are other studies I've seen that show that symptoms of Vitamin A deficiency are resolved by ingestion of retinoic acid as opposed to retinol, so if the claim is that the Vitamin A in the casein is poisonous because it is converted to retinoic acid by heat treatment, that claim also appears to be false).

I appreciate the more specific answer. I dont think it has been refuted in any meaningfulway though. I will get into the examples you mention but first want to specify that I havent seen any refutiaon of the arguments, only of some of the particular points of Grants criticism.  To make it more discussable (hopefully) I will try to limit it to addressing the specific points you mention here.            

Firstly I think you are right in saying that we have now way of knowing exactly how much vitamin A if any was in the feed that the rats were given. I am not even sure they would be able to if they tried at the time so I dont personally blame them for that.

I am on the fence as to wether the extraction of casein in a way that minimizes vitamin A, as I havent seen any study checking for all the forms, but if they have then that's clear enough. It doesent apply to the original study though (I dont think that is what you were saying either though).

But I also dont see any refutal in this. It just says that we cannot know whether there was vitamin A in the feed, and I agree. That in itself does not show that it wasnt.

Also there are the problem of confounding factors. If there wasnt any vitamin A in the rats feed in the W & H study, do we know that was what killed the rats. No, I am sure you agree on this too. We cant know this with any more certainty then we can know wether vitamin A was present or not.

My point here is that what you provide are not arguments proving Grants argument false, but rather proving what to me at least is obvious, that the W & H study doesnt prove that vitamin A killed the rats. I have no idea if Grant thinks that is proven, but thats not my impression. I do think it's relevant though that the experiment have two major weaknesses in that we do not know the vitamin A status of the feed, and we do not know what killed them.

In context I find it hard to belive that it was vitamin A deficiency who killed them. I think also the argument about how then if that be true did not Grants rodents die sooner as in the W & H study it took only 8 to 10 weeks. And as Grant mentions, what about all the rodents in the wild who do fine for much longer without these debilitating results.

I will not specualte too much on the exact cause of death of the rats in the study but I am open both for it being vitamin A and something completly different. Including vitamin A deficiency, but I find  vitamin A deficiency more unlikely given amongst other things the factors mentioned above.

About the growth retarded rats there is something that doesnt sit well as I've also seen other sources claim exaggerated growth (including of cancers, but also in general), and retinol is recognized as growth retardent in higher dosis (though that of course does not mean that to low couldnt also be growth retardant).

The reason I claimed -and I say this to be clearer - a lack of understanding of logic is not that what you write necessarily are false, some of it are beyond doubt true, and the statisitcal points very much so. The problem is that a refutation should find a fault that makes the position untenable, not just point out that there is uncertainty. Indeed if all we had to go by was that vitamin A is bad due to the H & W study I'd laugh at it. Its rather the other way around that it seems the claims the general concensus makes are not at all as well-founded as they are presented as, and the fact of a bias reproduction is as you probaly are familiar with, very real.

So while I agree in most of your point I dont see this do much to prove vitamin A as vitamin (regardless of wether actually is or not).

Also I would want to know the vitamin A status of the rats in the different experiments before the deprivation started. That must have a huge impact on how long it would take to induce an actual deficiency. 

As to the convertion the convertion itself is well documented - I have papers on that and it's also if I remember corrctly included in the longer thesis I posted. I , just like you, find it to be to many confounding factors there. F.ex we do not know how adding another form of vitamin A interacts with the ratio of different metabolites potentially already present in the rats. I'm not saying this proves anything, I rather say the same as I think is the outcome of your critisism of H & W: This does not provide proof, due to to much uncertainty and must be read in context.

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 23, 2023, 3:29 pm

@henrik

You need to clearly state what you believe to be Grant's argument and the supporting points for that argument so I know exactly what I need to respond to.  It's difficult to respond effectively to pages of rambling text.

"The problem is that a refutation should find a fault that makes the position untenable, not just point out that there is uncertainty."

In my opinion, Grant is claiming WITH CERTAINTY that it was NOT Vitamin A deficiency that killed those rats.  You seem to agree that we cannot know this.  Therefore, you seem to agree that Grant is WRONG; that his position is UNTENABLE.

I believe he is also saying they died of Vitamin A POISONING.  Yet the "control" diets in Wolbach and Howe as well as the other studies I mentioned would appear to have much more Vitamin A than the "deficient" diets, so why didn't the control group also die (and die more quickly) if Vitamin A was poisoning the other rats?  And again, if the argument is that the "deficient" diet had retinoic acid rather than retinol, and that is why the "deficient" group died and not the control group, then I say that is falsified by studies in which rodents improved on a diet with, or when given injections of, retinoic acid.

If it wasn't Vitamin A deficiency that killed them, what do you propose did kill them?  What other variables can you identify?  What rank of likelihoods would you attribute to any other variables you can identify?  If you're going to readily dismiss what seems to be the most parsimonious conclusion, and you agree that we cannot rule out that conclusion, then you had better have some alternative explanations in hand.

Wild rodents would appear to be consuming sufficient amounts of Vitamin A, wouldn't they?  What indication do we have that a wild rodent's diet is devoid of Vitamin A?

Can you point me to the information on Grant's own rat experiment so I can review it?  I'm not very familiar with what exactly he claims to have done.

Quote from Henrik on August 23, 2023, 6:38 pm

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 23, 2023, 3:29 pm

@henrik

You need to clearly state what you believe to be Grant's argument and the supporting points for that argument so I know exactly what I need to respond to.  It's difficult to respond effectively to pages of rambling text.

"The problem is that a refutation should find a fault that makes the position untenable, not just point out that there is uncertainty."

In my opinion, Grant is claiming WITH CERTAINTY that it was NOT Vitamin A deficiency that killed those rats.  You seem to agree that we cannot know this.  Therefore, you seem to agree that Grant is WRONG; that his position is UNTENABLE.

I believe he is also saying they died of Vitamin A POISONING.  Yet the "control" diets in Wolbach and Howe as well as the other studies I mentioned would appear to have much more Vitamin A than the "deficient" diets, so why didn't the control group also die (and die more quickly) if Vitamin A was poisoning the other rats?  And again, if the argument is that the "deficient" diet had retinoic acid rather than retinol, and that is why the "deficient" group died and not the control group, then I say that is falsified by studies in which rodents improved on a diet with, or when given injections of, retinoic acid.

If it wasn't Vitamin A deficiency that killed them, what do you propose did kill them?  What other variables can you identify?  What rank of likelihoods would you attribute to any other variables you can identify?  If you're going to readily dismiss what seems to be the most parsimonious conclusion, and you agree that we cannot rule out that conclusion, then you had better have some alternative explanations in hand.

Wild rodents would appear to be consuming sufficient amounts of Vitamin A, wouldn't they?  What indication do we have that a wild rodent's diet is devoid of Vitamin A?

Can you point me to the information on Grant's own rat experiment so I can review it?  I'm not very familiar with what exactly he claims to have done.

I am about to give up on you. You generally just avoid all and any arguments and if I put you on the spot you just start complaining about my style of writing. I am at a loss to how incompetent you are at spotting a simple logical fallacy . "Therefore, you seem to agree that Grant is WRONG; that his position is UNTENABLE."  no thats just not how logic works.  I cant belive it if you seriously think so. I have studied philosophy of science and its sort of primary school level logic - just like how you feel about my writing style - THE ABSENCE OF PROOF IS NOT PROOF OF ABSENCE. I have tried to explain this a ton of times and of course Im not to mother you writing up a summary of Grants books if you cant be assed to read them.

I am at a loss of how to get this across. Lets just say that the rats 100%sure didnt die of vitamin A poisoning as a tentative hypothesis. How does that affect anything?? Then they died from something else. It could be anything and again - its not like I have to list all possible alternatives for you not to be right. its the other way around. You have to prove that it WAS because of deficiency.

In case you find this just annoying here is a very old example from before they knew about this. Rats die faster on a diet of only apples or only butter then they do from only white bread made with water. There is many ways to skin a cat and also a rat: https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=vdcDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=rat+living+on+only+bread&source=bl&ots=wdsmPTzMOq&sig=ACfU3U1sPaxkzY1Dti8mCByzv01IxQM3OA&hl=no&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCv7jTkvSAAxW8IbkGHVZNA_A4FBDoAXoECBgQAw#v=onepage&q=rat%20living%20on%20only%20bread&f=false

Being annoyed and calling names is not a very convincing argument.

Quote from Deleted user on August 23, 2023, 7:10 pm

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 23, 2023, 11:48 am

@joe

It seems you have not read my many rebuttals to Grant's assertions.  It takes a lot of time and background scientific knowledge to truly understand what can be concluded from any given publication, and almost every time I see Grant or dipSmith post their assessment of a given publication it is abundantly clear that they either didn't bother to read it in its entirety, didn't understand its limitations, or didn't understand it period.  I'm a research biologist and half the papers I see them referencing make my head spin with all the minutiae and jargon from specialized disciplines like biochemistry.  There is simply no way they have sufficient understanding of all these specialized areas of science to truly understand many of these publications.  It is also clear they have no real grasp of statistics and its application to studying biological systems.  See, for example, my post here explaining why Grant himself has not and cannot prove that Vitamin A is a toxin: https://ggenereux.blog/discussion/topic/scientific-realities-understanding-the-inferential-limitations-of-data/#postid-24479

Ok I read it.  More of the same ad hominem you wrote above.  This is the same scientific sophistry we have seen in broad daylight selling self contradictory statements for the last three years of plague boondoggle.  You bring nothing to the argument pro or con and declare that this blog is without merit.  Of no value.  Fine leave.  Start your own.  Perhaps a whole group doing the same sophist ad hominem attacks will leave with you and you can call the blog we do not believe anything.  

Meanwhile you have clarified that you have not read Grant's books and do not see the plain scientific fraud on vit A and copper in nutrition going back decades.  Perhaps you need to get your boosters.  Do not forget to take your AZT preventively as well.  Oh the lives you and Fauci will save together.  

Unless and until you present one factual claim, argument, data, study, paper, or anything pertinent other than your ad hominem condescending appeals to authority that you do not have, consider your own credibility zero.  

To save you time, here is my reply on your other long winded sophist post.

You require perfect experiments to prove a point that Grant and a growing list of people prove for ourselves daily.  You are fine with obviously fraudulent experiments going back decades that allegedly prove vit A is a nutrient.  

Ok got it.  Thank you.  Move along now.  You have established that you have no reason to be here.  Everything you have said presents not data let alone new data to the argument.  This is pure ad hominem.  Please start your own blog presenting your point so those others here who present lame criticisms with zero data who have done no experiments own can flock to your new blog.  Perhaps you can call it the blog that believes only Fauci.  

Quote from Deleted user on August 23, 2023, 7:17 pm

Quote from Henrik on August 23, 2023, 6:38 pm

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 23, 2023, 3:29 pm

@henrik

You need to clearly state what you believe to be Grant's argument and the supporting points for that argument so I know exactly what I need to respond to.  It's difficult to respond effectively to pages of rambling text.

"The problem is that a refutation should find a fault that makes the position untenable, not just point out that there is uncertainty."

In my opinion, Grant is claiming WITH CERTAINTY that it was NOT Vitamin A deficiency that killed those rats.  You seem to agree that we cannot know this.  Therefore, you seem to agree that Grant is WRONG; that his position is UNTENABLE.

I believe he is also saying they died of Vitamin A POISONING.  Yet the "control" diets in Wolbach and Howe as well as the other studies I mentioned would appear to have much more Vitamin A than the "deficient" diets, so why didn't the control group also die (and die more quickly) if Vitamin A was poisoning the other rats?  And again, if the argument is that the "deficient" diet had retinoic acid rather than retinol, and that is why the "deficient" group died and not the control group, then I say that is falsified by studies in which rodents improved on a diet with, or when given injections of, retinoic acid.

If it wasn't Vitamin A deficiency that killed them, what do you propose did kill them?  What other variables can you identify?  What rank of likelihoods would you attribute to any other variables you can identify?  If you're going to readily dismiss what seems to be the most parsimonious conclusion, and you agree that we cannot rule out that conclusion, then you had better have some alternative explanations in hand.

Wild rodents would appear to be consuming sufficient amounts of Vitamin A, wouldn't they?  What indication do we have that a wild rodent's diet is devoid of Vitamin A?

Can you point me to the information on Grant's own rat experiment so I can review it?  I'm not very familiar with what exactly he claims to have done.

I am about to give up on you. You generally just avoid all and any arguments and if I put you on the spot you just start complaining about my style of writing. I am at a loss to how incompetent you are at spotting a simple logical fallacy . "Therefore, you seem to agree that Grant is WRONG; that his position is UNTENABLE."  no thats just not how logic works.  I cant belive it if you seriously think so. I have studied philosophy of science and its sort of primary school level logic - just like how you feel about my writing style - THE ABSENCE OF PROOF IS NOT PROOF OF ABSENCE. I have tried to explain this a ton of times and of course Im not to mother you writing up a summary of Grants books if you cant be assed to read them.

I am at a loss of how to get this across. Lets just say that the rats 100%sure didnt die of vitamin A poisoning as a tentative hypothesis. How does that affect anything?? Then they died from something else. It could be anything and again - its not like I have to list all possible alternatives for you not to be right. its the other way around. You have to prove that it WAS because of deficiency.

In case you find this just annoying here is a very old example from before they knew about this. Rats die faster on a diet of only apples or only butter then they do from only white bread made with water. There is many ways to skin a cat and also a rat: https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=vdcDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=rat+living+on+only+bread&source=bl&ots=wdsmPTzMOq&sig=ACfU3U1sPaxkzY1Dti8mCByzv01IxQM3OA&hl=no&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCv7jTkvSAAxW8IbkGHVZNA_A4FBDoAXoECBgQAw#v=onepage&q=rat%20living%20on%20only%20bread&f=false

Being annoyed and calling names is not a very convincing argument.

thank you Henrik.  You clarified for me that further efforts with @wavygravy is wasted time.  this is clearly a troll intended to waste time and put a bad light on this blog. Perhaps it is time to clean house and delete some of the accounts.  I dislike the idea of excluding anyone - it smells of censorship.  The idea of coming on a blog and ranting that the blog is wrong and worthless at length with nothing to back up the claims is tiresome at best.  Makes me curious what the impetus is.  

Quote from lil chick on August 24, 2023, 5:20 am

I do worry about the rat's casein diet.   It could be toxic in other ways besides lack of VA.  

Perfectly normal foods, like slow-cooked ribs, end with me up all night puking.  The proteins get wrecked.  This is the kind of thing that builds up over time and as your body can't keep up with detoxification.   It might be great for a few days or even weeks in people (or rats) with good detox pathways.    

There is no way I could live on a diet of 100% cheese and red wine (no matter how much I'd love that!)  or even powdered milk for that matter.   I think the amines would build up and I'd start having things like crashing migraines.

Fermented, dried, long-cooked, oxidized proteins aren't that healthy actually.   My bacon experiment proved this once and for all for me.    

I wouldn't be surprised if scurvy has to do with this.   Fresh meat fixed scurvy.    

Amines might be why people here and on Smith's site think pork bothers them.   Amines are generally higher in pork, especially when cured but even fresh.

Did they ever prove that the low-VA rat food was non-toxic in the long term?   Were any rats ever given the casein diet and a VA supplement?   This harkens to Wavy's thoughts on properly designing controls.

To bring this back around to the topic of eggs, my eggs are some of the freshest protein I eat.   (just for the record I think eggs can be overdone but are a good thing to eat in reasonable amounts).   Fresh, unadulterated milk is another low-amine food that works for me.

Fresh and bland... describes my target diet

Quote from lil chick on August 24, 2023, 6:16 am

https://ggenereux.blog/discussion/topic/idiopathic-intracranial-hypertension/#postid-24600

Here is some info on the problems with amines, and in the first post there is a description of how VA and tyramine are both on the list of offenders.   I'm thinking this is the same detox pathway.

Quote from tim on September 6, 2023, 8:52 pm

My thoughts on egg intake remain the same as the last five years. Three or four eggs per week are probably a good idea for micronutrients especially biotin.

Three per day? No. That's 200mcg per day of vA. We don't know exactly how that will affect vA depletion but it's likely that it could slow it down significantly especially when you consider that many may not be excreting vA well.

What about choline? Increasing choline intake can definitely help liver dysfunction but it isn't a panacea so consuming a food high in vA, carotenoids and cholesterol may be counterproductive at more than low levels of consumption. Lecithin is probably a better option for getting more choline.