I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Grant has NOT proven that vitamin A is non-essential
Quote from Janelle525 on August 21, 2024, 8:16 amI wasn't saying oxalates aren't a problem for people, I think spinach and rubarb and other veggies should be illegal lol. I ate a lot of spinach during the second half of my pregnancy with my first and he has asperger's. I think it is a cause of the autism epidemic. But... our own body produces oxalates so if we aren't clearing them then we wonder why? Grant ate plenty of dairy to bind oxalates in the intestines so that couldn't have been the cause of his kidney failure.
Dairy often does help bind up the oxalates. But not always. Plenty of folk have first hand experience with stones who love dairy, spinach, rhubarb,.......
Quote from Jessica2 on August 21, 2024, 2:16 pm@r-2 there's nothing Grant can do that he hasn't done already.
His case is an interesting one for sure.
It needs to be reproducible though. He is collecting cases. It might be a poison, it might not be. Until more evidence comes in, I will err on the side of its not poison and is probably needed for ruminants and in humans but not massive amounts and shouldn't be supplemented.
And err you will. Goats eat urushiol laden plants aggressively. That does not make urushiol a nutrient. It is most certainly a toxin to man. If you had read Grant's books you would see the irony in that choice of chemistry too. Urushiol and retinoic acid are almost identical. So are eczema and poison ivy rashes. Hm
But yeh, let's ignore Grant some more on his own blog and pretend this is not troll (Grant explained that Jessica/Jalee is not a troll - moderator) like behavior.
Quote from lil chick on August 22, 2024, 7:31 amQuote from Alex on August 21, 2024, 4:12 amQuote from r on August 20, 2024, 12:49 pmQuote from Tommy on August 19, 2024, 2:14 amWhat Grant has done is incredible.
He has proven that vitamin A is not required for survival anywhere near the amount suggested by mainstream sources.
He has also potentially identified an issue in chronic toxicity. Although personally to me the ideas around this still seem unclear.
However…
He has not proven that it is entirely non-essential.
Factors to consider
1. He is well nourished
2. He gets preformed (animal, final form) vitamin a in his diet every day through the consumption of beef and bison muscle meat which has a small amount of retinol.
3. He still has vitamin a in his serum and that will likely never change as long as he consumes meat.
"He has proven that vitamin A is not required for survival anywhere near the amount suggested by mainstream sources."
Survival ?? He is thriving my friend ! I dont know why people are so desperate to prove grant wrong
Thriving?? Please check the pic attached below left pic is from a vid of his 7 years ago, right pic is from his most recent youtube interview. Also he says he almost never sweats eg hypothyroid.
I will say that he didn't look his age either in the before or the after photo. Fifties?
Hey, my kids told me the other day that aging isn't a linear thing. That you bump up around 40 and then again around 60. I agree with this (as I just experienced that second bump!) and it might have to do with those tellomere thingies that make sure you don't hang around on the planet too long and instead let the young inherit it. Gosh I'm lazy now.
Let's get a fund together to pay to have Grant's telomeres tested. I bet his are at much younger levels now.
Try to calm down @joe. This is a discussion forum. We're talking to each other. Asking each of us @lil-chick, @christian, @tommy, @jessica2 and myself why we are here is rude. We know that Garrett Smith wanted Grant to remove people from this forum. Now it seems like your stated aim is to shut people down or submit as mentioned a couple of times in the Love Your Liver network. You are clearly a bully and we will never submit. You are doing far worse for the forum than @wavygravygadzooks who got banned. @ggenereux2014 Grant, the accusations from Joe are continuous in every second or third comment he accuses somebody of lying, trolling or bad faith for being here. This is not a good environment for discussion with Joe in it trying to shut it down which is his stated work. I'll start reporting all the posts where Joe makes accusations of an unfounded nature.
Quote from Andrew B on August 22, 2024, 11:43 pmTry to calm down @joe. This is a discussion forum. We're talking to each other. Asking each of us @lil-chick, @christian, @tommy, @jessica2 and myself why we are here is rude. We know that Garrett Smith wanted Grant to remove people from this forum. Now it seems like your stated aim is to shut people down or submit as mentioned a couple of times in the Love Your Liver network. You are clearly a bully and we will never submit. You are doing far worse for the forum than @wavygravygadzooks who got banned. @ggenereux2014 Grant, the accusations from Joe are continuous in every second or third comment he accuses somebody of lying, trolling or bad faith for being here. This is not a good environment for discussion with Joe in it trying to shut it down which is his stated work. I'll start reporting all the posts where Joe makes accusations of an unfounded nature.
Andrew B,
As I have been told several times here, you are not the boss of me. You have zero influence or control over what I say or do. I am not bullying you at all. I am asking a profound an unanswered question repeatedly. So far your only answer is that since the top ten posters on Grant's blog disagree with Grant it gives you credibility. Your tone is what it is. So is mine.
I am asking how this behavior is not trolling behavior because you routinely ignore the whole point of this blog and all the evidence presented. It is a valid question. Curious that you do not ask me such a question. Noteworthy that I have and will report no one. I am here to exchange with anyone and everyone. I am also here to counter false claims and ad hominem attacks. I have seen plenty of them.
Comparing me to WavyGravy is as ridiculous as most of the other cointelpro tactics you use. I am not in the least angry. Nor am I obscene nor messing with anyone. I do not demean you for several reasons. What comes around goes around. I think you are probably a genius. You clearly have much knowledge and access to knowledge. What baffles me is that you work so hard to avoid using evidence that Grant presents and working clinical knowledge that Garrett is using to great success.
Your claim that Jenny was hurt by Garrett and her claim that she built Garrett's program and felt abused that he disagreed with her is spurious at best. It is none of my business but since I was brought it in, it looks from here like someone tried to tell Garrett how to run his business. Wrong or right, I will not do that to Grant, Garrett, you or Jenny. I will ask questions when behavior makes no sense.
I have not asked Grant why he lets you run on with this gaslighting. First it is his blog and his business. Second, I agree with him that I do not want to remove anyone. After reading Wavy's exchanges, I probably would have left him in. It would probalby be a mistake since once you let things deteriorate to obscenity, it usually only gets worse. I suggest the same is true here with ad hominem attacks. While I do not remember calling anyone a troll or any other name, I have been called many names. I have seen much worse ad hominem attacks on Garrett.
Attacking Garrett on this blog is one of the most telling aspects of your goals. Tactics are determined by strategy. Strategy is determined by goals. Ad hominem attacks against someone who is not even here nor interested in defending himself speaks loud and clear.
So bring your best arguments and testimonials Andrew. Talk with me and stay civil if you are up to the task. Complain all you want but it is not me who is failing to engage in civil conversation. I will keep posting testimonials by people who are extremely grateful to Grant for breaking new ground and thoroughly testing theories. And they might be grateful to Garrett for being a great clinician and applying Grant's ideas in a profoundly effective manner.
That brings to mind that it is interesting that Garrett has little if anyone marketing his site here (besides me right now) and you are selling your private group on facebook here consistently. Why is that group private? Why can we not all see what is said on that site? Why is the site described as a vitamin A group based on the writings of Grant Genereux. Just keeping it private clearly violates Grant's ideals.
Hope you can maintain a civil tone and continue this conversation. Please accuse me of something I am capable of doing. Thank you and have a better night.
Righteous indignation is pretty much the most popular sport on the planet these days.
I've been on the inter webs longer than there have been inter webs. (Back when the user interface was punch cards). The first online forum I participated in was about parenting, and it was pre-www. Anyhow, one thing I've realized is, forums are a great place to learn and get new ideas, but they really aren't a great place to change people's minds that are already made up about a subject.
The supernatural gods up on Mount Olympus or whatever...sure hate it when people are overly confident of their health opinions.
Quote from Jalee on August 23, 2024, 4:13 am@joe it's actually quite funny: your expressed purpose here is to promote Garrett who has a vested interest in this, and you're asking everyone else here most of whom who make NO MONEY $0.00 dollars, on this why we are here? If we had a vested interest in this would that make our presence here legit?
Vague conspiratorial references to egg Lobby and Rockefellers doesn't change the fact that you are actually here promoting somebody making money off of this. I know who I trust more.
My question goes to the fact that you spend many hours a week on a blog criticizing the basis for that blog. Who does that? Why? I can blog more knowledgeably on blogs about Zone diet than vast majority of particiapants. Same for keto and paleo. Same for vegetarian and probably vegan. I can most certainly and frequently have helped people new to those diets over the difficulties inherent in each of those paradigms. I also disagree with them and do not practice them anymore. I know how to use them and have used aspects of each of them in the last 20 months transitioning from keto to a variation on the prison or cowboy diet.
That all being said, why would I go on any of the blogs on those diets for 10 or 20 hours a week arguing with those people that their blog is a mistake? Money incentives aside, what kind of behavior is that?
This is not rhetorical nor an abusive question. You have at least 10 people on this blog by Andrew's admission who are contrary to this blog and they post more than anyone else? Why would 10 people do that? Why would those ten people not be blogging about what they think is a good idea on their own blog? Why would they not draw people to their own blog based on their ideas? Why would they detract from that blog by spending time attacking another blog with excessive posts, ad hominem attacks, long metabolic minutiae laden posts, and on?
It is a simple question. Since all ten of you feel this is such a bad idea, why are you on this blog?
Do you go to bars to tell people how bad it is to drink alcohol? Do you go to AA meetings and tell them that their recidivism rates are the same as alcoholics who quit cold turkey on their own? Do you go to cancer groups and tell them that the participants chose the wrong cancer treatments?
Why are you here is a valid question. It is the crucial question.
An "Opposing views" section could probably benefit the forum ?