I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
K's diagnosis of "damaged liver, inter-hepatic cholestasis, slow intestines, enlarged bile ducts, inflamed bile ducts, basically EVERYTHING almost word for word you talked about in your celiac podcast"
Frankly, these testimonials are starting to get annoying. If it was the person in question who posted it, it would be a different story. It would feel less like spamming if it was all posted in a dedicated thread, as Grapes has already suggested.
No one on this forum needs to be convinced of the toxicity of vitamin A. There is debate as to which road leads to Rome fastest (and maybe safest), but we all want to achieve higher functioning in our daily lives.
Quote from Hermes on September 27, 2024, 11:34 amFrankly, these testimonials are starting to get annoying. If it was the person in question who posted it, it would be a different story. It would feel less like spamming if it was all posted in a dedicated thread, as Grapes has already suggested.
No one on this forum needs to be convinced of the toxicity of vitamin A. There is debate as to which road leads to Rome fastest (and maybe safest), but we all want to achieve higher functioning in our daily lives.
What about these is annoying?
The people who post these testimonials refuse to post them here for a reason. Uniformly, they do not want to deal with what they consider trolling of their personal stories. As it stands most come here to see the replies to their posts and go back to their other media and tell others they were right in avoiding this blog. There is a growing group of people doing better with retinoid depletion who feel this blog is a waste of their time, EXCEPT for the founder's posts. Most carnivores feel the same way. Many carnivores are now adding fiber and charcoal and getting even better results than they already were. The blog who must not be named has some fired up conversations between carbos and carnivores comparing successes and problems.
They are not debating minutiae and mechanistic ideas before the fact. They stake their belief, trial it and post results. We even have a couple former egg eaters coming back to post that eggs did not work for them and after six months they not only were worse off they could not stand to eat more eggs.
If you want more open intelligent exchanges here you will accept the fact that a clinician and his growing group of clinicians are getting good results.
One would think just the fact that your are advocating censorship and pretending that the EVIL ONE must not be named, while calling him all sorts of names would tell you everything you need to know about yourselves. You have heard zero name calling from me about Ray Peat followers even as I am well aware of their ideas and have experience with them long before Peat sold those ideas. I think they are killing themselves and others slowly and not so slowly. I would and never have called them a name or refused to let someone talk about them.
When in history of science or anything for that matter have censors ever been right about anything? When have censors ever brought the truth out faster if at all?
You demonstrate repeatedly Grant's core belief that debate is worthless. Real world results are all that matters. Please, let everyone bring their real world results uncensored and let us all look at them. Please leave the medical minutiae and faux skepticism and ad hominem attacks on accredited successful medical practitioners at home and make this blog worth keeping.
Quote from Joe2 on September 27, 2024, 10:02 amThese testimonials are real. I am in contact with each individual directly before posting. We go back and forth at length on LYL blogs, on email and on twitter x. They are as real people and true stories as what we see written here. @sand can be biased and make Garrett as taboo as he likes. Call it a cult or Garrett a charlatan all he likes.
Being biased and debating are not helping nor moving towards the truth one inch. Results matter. Recognizing the truth, acting on it and testing it is science. Grant did that. Ironic that these conversations trivialize and nitpick everything Grant did all day while attacking Garrett with ad hominems.
And you wonder why Grant wants to shut down this forum.
Testing the truth and proving it out and then acknowledging the individual who helped bring that truth out is a far cry from cult behavior and being a charlatan.
Whether it is consccious effort or subconscious there is a not very fine line between showing skepticism, testing the truth and flat out trolling a blog founder on his own blog. Good luck at finding the truth and better health when you willfully ignore people who are having good results and laying out the difficulties they had along the way.
None of your testimonials provide enough detail about diet and lifestyle changes to deduce what the cause of the problem was. Just about every human symptom has multiple potential etiologies. You choose to believe it was Vitamin A, but there is no irrefutable proof for that, it is just conjecture. Every one of these testimonials you post is riddled with confounding variables. People almost always change multiple factors at once. It is more likely the removal of plant compounds than retinoids in many cases, including Grant's.
There are testimonials all across the internet of people purportedly seeing benefits from almost every dietary strategy imaginable, including eating lots of carotenoids and/or retinoids. What makes these testimonials about low Vitamin A any more credible than all the rest? That your testimonials are associated with the anti-scientific crackpottery of GS (who thinks that nutrients like copper and B6 are poison, but poisons like MMS are the solution) makes them far less credible.
Neither GS nor GG are conducting science. Science proceeds through attempts at falsifying hypotheses. A hypothesis that repeatedly withstands attempts at falsification approaches the status of objective truth. GS and GG will no longer consider reasonable arguments that falsify the hypothesis that Vitamin A is non-essential, such as the ones I've provided in my threads on this forum. Grant even said as much himself in that last video you posted of him talking to Elwin Robinson (Elwin: have you looked into alternative explanations for your healing? Grant: I haven't really specifically looked at that.) After 10 years of avoiding Vitamin A, Grant still has it circulating in his blood, which means that it could still be serving its critical biological roles in vision and cell differentiation. Yet Grant refuses to acknowledge this and still hasn't looked into alternative explanations for his improved health? That is anti-scientific zealotry and this type of bias is visible in his writing from the very beginning of his blog. In the video with Elwin, Grant says he despises Vitamin A. Those are not the words of a level-headed scientist, those of the words of someone who has formed an unshakable grudge.
Grant has provided some solid evidence to suggest that the RDI/RDA for Vitamin A is far too high for most people, and there was already ample evidence to indicate that retinoids in excess of some threshold can be very harmful. However, with measurable amounts of Vitamin A circulating in his blood on each lab test, and without a measure of storage elsewhere in the body, Grant has not and will not show that Vitamin A is non-essential. Grant's sensitivity to onion powder and sourdough bread (probably the gluten from North American strains of wheat, not the fortified niacin) suggests his body is not as robust on a low Vitamin A diet as he would have people believe.
Quote from Tricky on September 27, 2024, 3:41 pmQuote from Joe2 on September 27, 2024, 10:02 amThese testimonials are real. I am in contact with each individual directly before posting. We go back and forth at length on LYL blogs, on email and on twitter x. They are as real people and true stories as what we see written here. @sand can be biased and make Garrett as taboo as he likes. Call it a cult or Garrett a charlatan all he likes.
Being biased and debating are not helping nor moving towards the truth one inch. Results matter. Recognizing the truth, acting on it and testing it is science. Grant did that. Ironic that these conversations trivialize and nitpick everything Grant did all day while attacking Garrett with ad hominems.
And you wonder why Grant wants to shut down this forum.
Testing the truth and proving it out and then acknowledging the individual who helped bring that truth out is a far cry from cult behavior and being a charlatan.
Whether it is consccious effort or subconscious there is a not very fine line between showing skepticism, testing the truth and flat out trolling a blog founder on his own blog. Good luck at finding the truth and better health when you willfully ignore people who are having good results and laying out the difficulties they had along the way.
None of your testimonials provide enough detail about diet and lifestyle changes to deduce what the cause of the problem was. Just about every human symptom has multiple potential etiologies. You choose to believe it was Vitamin A, but there is no irrefutable proof for that, it is just conjecture. Every one of these testimonials you post is riddled with confounding variables. People almost always change multiple factors at once. It is more likely the removal of plant compounds than retinoids in many cases, including Grant's.
There are testimonials all across the internet of people purportedly seeing benefits from almost every dietary strategy imaginable, including eating lots of carotenoids and/or retinoids. What makes these testimonials about low Vitamin A any more credible than all the rest? That your testimonials are associated with the anti-scientific crackpottery of GS (who thinks that nutrients like copper and B6 are poison, but poisons like MMS are the solution) makes them far less credible.
Neither GS nor GG are conducting science. Science proceeds through attempts at falsifying hypotheses. A hypothesis that repeatedly withstands attempts at falsification approaches the status of objective truth. GS and GG will no longer consider reasonable arguments that falsify the hypothesis that Vitamin A is non-essential, such as the ones I've provided in my threads on this forum. Grant even said as much himself in that last video you posted of him talking to Elwin Robinson (Elwin: have you looked into alternative explanations for your healing? Grant: I haven't really specifically looked at that.) After 10 years of avoiding Vitamin A, Grant still has it circulating in his blood, which means that it could still be serving its critical biological roles in vision and cell differentiation. Yet Grant refuses to acknowledge this and still hasn't looked into alternative explanations for his improved health? That is anti-scientific zealotry and this type of bias is visible in his writing from the very beginning of his blog. In the video with Elwin, Grant says he despises Vitamin A. Those are not the words of a level-headed scientist, those of the words of someone who has formed an unshakable grudge.
Grant has provided some solid evidence to suggest that the RDI/RDA for Vitamin A is far too high for most people, and there was already ample evidence to indicate that retinoids in excess of some threshold can be very harmful. However, with measurable amounts of Vitamin A circulating in his blood on each lab test, and without a measure of storage elsewhere in the body, Grant has not and will not show that Vitamin A is non-essential. Grant's sensitivity to onion powder and sourdough bread (probably the gluten from North American strains of wheat, not the fortified niacin) suggests his body is not as robust on a low Vitamin A diet as he would have people believe.
Your sciency and detailed analysis sounds strong, UNTIL one realizes that no matter what Grant and Garrett do, you presume they are wrong in how they do it, in that they do it and in the results they draw from it. And then you ignore the significance of what they do and what it shows.
You still fail to answer how it is that Grant is not blind where we all know by all definitions of a MINIMUM daily requirement of a NUTRIENT he was supposed to by all the most sciency scientists that Rockefeller and Gates Foundation grants can buy go blind. And that he should have died at least once if not 20 times 8 years ago.
Yet here he is hanging by a thread of that tiny amount of retinoids still in his serum only able to bench press 166% of his body weight at the age of 63. But yeh sure if you can throw out any other confounding factor from the blogosphere and pretend he has proven nothing and is biased and useless ok, sure. Meanwhile real people are applying the principles he worked out, building on them and advancing them and improving. And they are writing about it. And they are working on all those confounding ideas as they present.
If it looks like eating 5 eggs a day will help, fine, try it. Let's see what it gets. If it works, figure out the mechanism and repeat it and prove it again or falsifiy it again. If it does not, ok, move on.
If you are certain of the virtues of everything you wrote above, then falsify Grant's experiment yourself. Put as much on the line as Grant did. Either eat his diet for ten years and measure everything or do the opposite. Eat 5 eggs a day. Eat liver. Prove something. All you are doing and have done here is to denigrate every effort everyone made to separate out and test single factors.
The criticism of Grant on this blog makes Grant look silly for letting it go on so long. When I was hurting and needed guidance in 2023, it took me 2 weeks to see it could not come from this blog. I got it elsewhere and am not allowed by current mods to say where. I got it and worked with it and improved phenomenally. And there were confounding factors and I tested the ideas and got hurt. Then retested the helpful ideas and resolved old problems. Then I wrote about it and found even more people with similar experience.
That is all anecdotal experience. No science is every done with out seeing anecdotal experience first. Now do your science. Quit with the heck-bent-for-leather spreading of condescending FearUncertaintyDoubt. Better yet go get a job with the Gates Foundation and test some of his better ideas to spread on populations too poor to stop him.
Quote from Joe2 on September 27, 2024, 5:44 pmQuote from Tricky on September 27, 2024, 3:41 pmQuote from Joe2 on September 27, 2024, 10:02 amThese testimonials are real. I am in contact with each individual directly before posting. We go back and forth at length on LYL blogs, on email and on twitter x. They are as real people and true stories as what we see written here. @sand can be biased and make Garrett as taboo as he likes. Call it a cult or Garrett a charlatan all he likes.
Being biased and debating are not helping nor moving towards the truth one inch. Results matter. Recognizing the truth, acting on it and testing it is science. Grant did that. Ironic that these conversations trivialize and nitpick everything Grant did all day while attacking Garrett with ad hominems.
And you wonder why Grant wants to shut down this forum.
Testing the truth and proving it out and then acknowledging the individual who helped bring that truth out is a far cry from cult behavior and being a charlatan.
Whether it is consccious effort or subconscious there is a not very fine line between showing skepticism, testing the truth and flat out trolling a blog founder on his own blog. Good luck at finding the truth and better health when you willfully ignore people who are having good results and laying out the difficulties they had along the way.
None of your testimonials provide enough detail about diet and lifestyle changes to deduce what the cause of the problem was. Just about every human symptom has multiple potential etiologies. You choose to believe it was Vitamin A, but there is no irrefutable proof for that, it is just conjecture. Every one of these testimonials you post is riddled with confounding variables. People almost always change multiple factors at once. It is more likely the removal of plant compounds than retinoids in many cases, including Grant's.
There are testimonials all across the internet of people purportedly seeing benefits from almost every dietary strategy imaginable, including eating lots of carotenoids and/or retinoids. What makes these testimonials about low Vitamin A any more credible than all the rest? That your testimonials are associated with the anti-scientific crackpottery of GS (who thinks that nutrients like copper and B6 are poison, but poisons like MMS are the solution) makes them far less credible.
Neither GS nor GG are conducting science. Science proceeds through attempts at falsifying hypotheses. A hypothesis that repeatedly withstands attempts at falsification approaches the status of objective truth. GS and GG will no longer consider reasonable arguments that falsify the hypothesis that Vitamin A is non-essential, such as the ones I've provided in my threads on this forum. Grant even said as much himself in that last video you posted of him talking to Elwin Robinson (Elwin: have you looked into alternative explanations for your healing? Grant: I haven't really specifically looked at that.) After 10 years of avoiding Vitamin A, Grant still has it circulating in his blood, which means that it could still be serving its critical biological roles in vision and cell differentiation. Yet Grant refuses to acknowledge this and still hasn't looked into alternative explanations for his improved health? That is anti-scientific zealotry and this type of bias is visible in his writing from the very beginning of his blog. In the video with Elwin, Grant says he despises Vitamin A. Those are not the words of a level-headed scientist, those of the words of someone who has formed an unshakable grudge.
Grant has provided some solid evidence to suggest that the RDI/RDA for Vitamin A is far too high for most people, and there was already ample evidence to indicate that retinoids in excess of some threshold can be very harmful. However, with measurable amounts of Vitamin A circulating in his blood on each lab test, and without a measure of storage elsewhere in the body, Grant has not and will not show that Vitamin A is non-essential. Grant's sensitivity to onion powder and sourdough bread (probably the gluten from North American strains of wheat, not the fortified niacin) suggests his body is not as robust on a low Vitamin A diet as he would have people believe.
Your sciency and detailed analysis sounds strong, UNTIL one realizes that no matter what Grant and Garrett do, you presume they are wrong in how they do it, in that they do it and in the results they draw from it. And then you ignore the significance of what they do and what it shows.
You still fail to answer how it is that Grant is not blind where we all know by all definitions of a MINIMUM daily requirement of a NUTRIENT he was supposed to by all the most sciency scientists that Rockefeller and Gates Foundation grants can buy go blind. And that he should have died at least once if not 20 times 8 years ago.
Yet here he is hanging by a thread of that tiny amount of retinoids still in his serum only able to bench press 166% of his body weight at the age of 63. But yeh sure if you can throw out any other confounding factor from the blogosphere and pretend he has proven nothing and is biased and useless ok, sure. Meanwhile real people are applying the principles he worked out, building on them and advancing them and improving. And they are writing about it. And they are working on all those confounding ideas as they present.
If it looks like eating 5 eggs a day will help, fine, try it. Let's see what it gets. If it works, figure out the mechanism and repeat it and prove it again or falsifiy it again. If it does not, ok, move on.
If you are certain of the virtues of everything you wrote above, then falsify Grant's experiment yourself. Put as much on the line as Grant did. Either eat his diet for ten years and measure everything or do the opposite. Eat 5 eggs a day. Eat liver. Prove something. All you are doing and have done here is to denigrate every effort everyone made to separate out and test single factors.
The criticism of Grant on this blog makes Grant look silly for letting it go on so long. When I was hurting and needed guidance in 2023, it took me 2 weeks to see it could not come from this blog. I got it elsewhere and am not allowed by current mods to say where. I got it and worked with it and improved phenomenally. And there were confounding factors and I tested the ideas and got hurt. Then retested the helpful ideas and resolved old problems. Then I wrote about it and found even more people with similar experience.
That is all anecdotal experience. No science is every done with out seeing anecdotal experience first. Now do your science. Quit with the heck-bent-for-leather spreading of condescending FearUncertaintyDoubt. Better yet go get a job with the Gates Foundation and test some of his better ideas to spread on populations too poor to stop him.
Yep, that's pretty much the reply I expected. Zero comprehension. Good luck with your version of "science".
Quote from Tricky on September 27, 2024, 6:13 pmQuote from Joe2 on September 27, 2024, 5:44 pmQuote from Tricky on September 27, 2024, 3:41 pmQuote from Joe2 on September 27, 2024, 10:02 amThese testimonials are real. I am in contact with each individual directly before posting. We go back and forth at length on LYL blogs, on email and on twitter x. They are as real people and true stories as what we see written here. @sand can be biased and make Garrett as taboo as he likes. Call it a cult or Garrett a charlatan all he likes.
Being biased and debating are not helping nor moving towards the truth one inch. Results matter. Recognizing the truth, acting on it and testing it is science. Grant did that. Ironic that these conversations trivialize and nitpick everything Grant did all day while attacking Garrett with ad hominems.
And you wonder why Grant wants to shut down this forum.
Testing the truth and proving it out and then acknowledging the individual who helped bring that truth out is a far cry from cult behavior and being a charlatan.
Whether it is consccious effort or subconscious there is a not very fine line between showing skepticism, testing the truth and flat out trolling a blog founder on his own blog. Good luck at finding the truth and better health when you willfully ignore people who are having good results and laying out the difficulties they had along the way.
None of your testimonials provide enough detail about diet and lifestyle changes to deduce what the cause of the problem was. Just about every human symptom has multiple potential etiologies. You choose to believe it was Vitamin A, but there is no irrefutable proof for that, it is just conjecture. Every one of these testimonials you post is riddled with confounding variables. People almost always change multiple factors at once. It is more likely the removal of plant compounds than retinoids in many cases, including Grant's.
There are testimonials all across the internet of people purportedly seeing benefits from almost every dietary strategy imaginable, including eating lots of carotenoids and/or retinoids. What makes these testimonials about low Vitamin A any more credible than all the rest? That your testimonials are associated with the anti-scientific crackpottery of GS (who thinks that nutrients like copper and B6 are poison, but poisons like MMS are the solution) makes them far less credible.
Neither GS nor GG are conducting science. Science proceeds through attempts at falsifying hypotheses. A hypothesis that repeatedly withstands attempts at falsification approaches the status of objective truth. GS and GG will no longer consider reasonable arguments that falsify the hypothesis that Vitamin A is non-essential, such as the ones I've provided in my threads on this forum. Grant even said as much himself in that last video you posted of him talking to Elwin Robinson (Elwin: have you looked into alternative explanations for your healing? Grant: I haven't really specifically looked at that.) After 10 years of avoiding Vitamin A, Grant still has it circulating in his blood, which means that it could still be serving its critical biological roles in vision and cell differentiation. Yet Grant refuses to acknowledge this and still hasn't looked into alternative explanations for his improved health? That is anti-scientific zealotry and this type of bias is visible in his writing from the very beginning of his blog. In the video with Elwin, Grant says he despises Vitamin A. Those are not the words of a level-headed scientist, those of the words of someone who has formed an unshakable grudge.
Grant has provided some solid evidence to suggest that the RDI/RDA for Vitamin A is far too high for most people, and there was already ample evidence to indicate that retinoids in excess of some threshold can be very harmful. However, with measurable amounts of Vitamin A circulating in his blood on each lab test, and without a measure of storage elsewhere in the body, Grant has not and will not show that Vitamin A is non-essential. Grant's sensitivity to onion powder and sourdough bread (probably the gluten from North American strains of wheat, not the fortified niacin) suggests his body is not as robust on a low Vitamin A diet as he would have people believe.
Your sciency and detailed analysis sounds strong, UNTIL one realizes that no matter what Grant and Garrett do, you presume they are wrong in how they do it, in that they do it and in the results they draw from it. And then you ignore the significance of what they do and what it shows.
You still fail to answer how it is that Grant is not blind where we all know by all definitions of a MINIMUM daily requirement of a NUTRIENT he was supposed to by all the most sciency scientists that Rockefeller and Gates Foundation grants can buy go blind. And that he should have died at least once if not 20 times 8 years ago.
Yet here he is hanging by a thread of that tiny amount of retinoids still in his serum only able to bench press 166% of his body weight at the age of 63. But yeh sure if you can throw out any other confounding factor from the blogosphere and pretend he has proven nothing and is biased and useless ok, sure. Meanwhile real people are applying the principles he worked out, building on them and advancing them and improving. And they are writing about it. And they are working on all those confounding ideas as they present.
If it looks like eating 5 eggs a day will help, fine, try it. Let's see what it gets. If it works, figure out the mechanism and repeat it and prove it again or falsifiy it again. If it does not, ok, move on.
If you are certain of the virtues of everything you wrote above, then falsify Grant's experiment yourself. Put as much on the line as Grant did. Either eat his diet for ten years and measure everything or do the opposite. Eat 5 eggs a day. Eat liver. Prove something. All you are doing and have done here is to denigrate every effort everyone made to separate out and test single factors.
The criticism of Grant on this blog makes Grant look silly for letting it go on so long. When I was hurting and needed guidance in 2023, it took me 2 weeks to see it could not come from this blog. I got it elsewhere and am not allowed by current mods to say where. I got it and worked with it and improved phenomenally. And there were confounding factors and I tested the ideas and got hurt. Then retested the helpful ideas and resolved old problems. Then I wrote about it and found even more people with similar experience.
That is all anecdotal experience. No science is every done with out seeing anecdotal experience first. Now do your science. Quit with the heck-bent-for-leather spreading of condescending FearUncertaintyDoubt. Better yet go get a job with the Gates Foundation and test some of his better ideas to spread on populations too poor to stop him.
Yep, that's pretty much the reply I expected. Zero comprehension. Good luck with your version of "science".
So as I fail as your student, do you acknowledge your failure to acknowledge that Grant is violating all the laws of your proven science? Not just some of them. Not just a confounding principal. When a compound is named a nutrient and a quantity of it is determined to be required for life, THE SCIENCE is now established. Are you going to continue to willfully ignore the significance of THE SCIENCE being wrong by at least a factor or one thousand?
Or will you continue to say that the chemical is required for life because Grant has not been able to get rid of the last little bit of it? I wonder if that logic holds for the mercury still floating around in my tissue left over from my amalgams removed thirty years ago prove that mercury is a nutrient.
It is pretty easy Mr Teacher. If you want to prove your point to all these willing students that you declare failures it is real easy. All you need to do is your own version of the same experiment. Either positive or negative. Glom the vitamin A or restrict it to naught. Give us another piece of anecdotal evidence we can base another experiment on. Or sit on the side and armchair quarterback and pretend that you know better than everyone is proven by the fact that you disapprove of whatever they do.
Please impress us. Show us some improvements that we just can not explain away. Or show us some ridiculous established science facts that you violate for ten years with not only zero negative consequences but instead amazing and wild improvements in all aspects of life.
Or are you here just to say anything negative you can think of to denigrate what everyone else is trialing and working at?
Quote from lil chick on September 27, 2024, 8:01 amDoes everyone have a family member whose trail of tears is similar to that above? We do for sure.
I now tell my kids "whenever there is mystery illness, you should start to think Vitamin A Overload"
In response, my kid said: they have Vitamin-A-Overload... Overload.
I suppose that sometimes a person over-extends their message to the point where it starts to get...ignored!
Ever hear kids tell their parents not to worry, this -------------------(insert substance of choice here)--------- is not that big a deal. I know what I am doing. it is no big deal. Sometimes people have to be allowed to make their own choices and make their own mistakes. If your kid was talking about tobacco and his younger brother were listening, would we be discussing tobacco overload - overload?
Although some interesting points about vitamin A have been raised, blood pressure has also been raised. And that is not healthy for anyone. We all know how each of you stand on the subject so let's put it to bed, THANKS.
Joe2 said: "As it stands most come here to see the replies to their posts and go back to their other media and tell others they were right in avoiding this blog. There is a growing group of people doing better with retinoid depletion who feel this blog is a waste of their time,"
You know what Joe2, I think the worst thing you do is come here and spread this kind of Bad JUJU. Keep your negative energy to yourself.
People who criticize a free website are like people who criticize free ice cream. They should continue to lurk so they don't get their tiny little feelings hurt.
Grant started this free website so that people could display, in the free air, how the notion of reducing vitamin A has affected them.
If you understood deeper reason behind why this website is free, you would perhaps understand why it is not to be bogged down by advertisements or any money-making posts. It needs to be unadulterated by money.
I have to admit that I was one who was a bit afraid to talk here because Jessica started attacking everything I said. I enjoyed coming here to talk about health until it got personal. She appears to be gone now. It's not that I'm too fragile, it's that these are things you would never say to someone's face. We should be able to discuss what we believe with people who disagree, but no one wants to do that if it's constantly a mockery.
Quote from Tricky on September 27, 2024, 6:13 pmQuote from Joe2 on September 27, 2024, 5:44 pmQuote from Tricky on September 27, 2024, 3:41 pmQuote from Joe2 on September 27, 2024, 10:02 amThese testimonials are real. I am in contact with each individual directly before posting. We go back and forth at length on LYL blogs, on email and on twitter x. They are as real people and true stories as what we see written here. @sand can be biased and make Garrett as taboo as he likes. Call it a cult or Garrett a charlatan all he likes.
Being biased and debating are not helping nor moving towards the truth one inch. Results matter. Recognizing the truth, acting on it and testing it is science. Grant did that. Ironic that these conversations trivialize and nitpick everything Grant did all day while attacking Garrett with ad hominems.
And you wonder why Grant wants to shut down this forum.
Testing the truth and proving it out and then acknowledging the individual who helped bring that truth out is a far cry from cult behavior and being a charlatan.
Whether it is consccious effort or subconscious there is a not very fine line between showing skepticism, testing the truth and flat out trolling a blog founder on his own blog. Good luck at finding the truth and better health when you willfully ignore people who are having good results and laying out the difficulties they had along the way.
None of your testimonials provide enough detail about diet and lifestyle changes to deduce what the cause of the problem was. Just about every human symptom has multiple potential etiologies. You choose to believe it was Vitamin A, but there is no irrefutable proof for that, it is just conjecture. Every one of these testimonials you post is riddled with confounding variables. People almost always change multiple factors at once. It is more likely the removal of plant compounds than retinoids in many cases, including Grant's.
There are testimonials all across the internet of people purportedly seeing benefits from almost every dietary strategy imaginable, including eating lots of carotenoids and/or retinoids. What makes these testimonials about low Vitamin A any more credible than all the rest? That your testimonials are associated with the anti-scientific crackpottery of GS (who thinks that nutrients like copper and B6 are poison, but poisons like MMS are the solution) makes them far less credible.
Neither GS nor GG are conducting science. Science proceeds through attempts at falsifying hypotheses. A hypothesis that repeatedly withstands attempts at falsification approaches the status of objective truth. GS and GG will no longer consider reasonable arguments that falsify the hypothesis that Vitamin A is non-essential, such as the ones I've provided in my threads on this forum. Grant even said as much himself in that last video you posted of him talking to Elwin Robinson (Elwin: have you looked into alternative explanations for your healing? Grant: I haven't really specifically looked at that.) After 10 years of avoiding Vitamin A, Grant still has it circulating in his blood, which means that it could still be serving its critical biological roles in vision and cell differentiation. Yet Grant refuses to acknowledge this and still hasn't looked into alternative explanations for his improved health? That is anti-scientific zealotry and this type of bias is visible in his writing from the very beginning of his blog. In the video with Elwin, Grant says he despises Vitamin A. Those are not the words of a level-headed scientist, those of the words of someone who has formed an unshakable grudge.
Grant has provided some solid evidence to suggest that the RDI/RDA for Vitamin A is far too high for most people, and there was already ample evidence to indicate that retinoids in excess of some threshold can be very harmful. However, with measurable amounts of Vitamin A circulating in his blood on each lab test, and without a measure of storage elsewhere in the body, Grant has not and will not show that Vitamin A is non-essential. Grant's sensitivity to onion powder and sourdough bread (probably the gluten from North American strains of wheat, not the fortified niacin) suggests his body is not as robust on a low Vitamin A diet as he would have people believe.
Your sciency and detailed analysis sounds strong, UNTIL one realizes that no matter what Grant and Garrett do, you presume they are wrong in how they do it, in that they do it and in the results they draw from it. And then you ignore the significance of what they do and what it shows.
You still fail to answer how it is that Grant is not blind where we all know by all definitions of a MINIMUM daily requirement of a NUTRIENT he was supposed to by all the most sciency scientists that Rockefeller and Gates Foundation grants can buy go blind. And that he should have died at least once if not 20 times 8 years ago.
Yet here he is hanging by a thread of that tiny amount of retinoids still in his serum only able to bench press 166% of his body weight at the age of 63. But yeh sure if you can throw out any other confounding factor from the blogosphere and pretend he has proven nothing and is biased and useless ok, sure. Meanwhile real people are applying the principles he worked out, building on them and advancing them and improving. And they are writing about it. And they are working on all those confounding ideas as they present.
If it looks like eating 5 eggs a day will help, fine, try it. Let's see what it gets. If it works, figure out the mechanism and repeat it and prove it again or falsifiy it again. If it does not, ok, move on.
If you are certain of the virtues of everything you wrote above, then falsify Grant's experiment yourself. Put as much on the line as Grant did. Either eat his diet for ten years and measure everything or do the opposite. Eat 5 eggs a day. Eat liver. Prove something. All you are doing and have done here is to denigrate every effort everyone made to separate out and test single factors.
The criticism of Grant on this blog makes Grant look silly for letting it go on so long. When I was hurting and needed guidance in 2023, it took me 2 weeks to see it could not come from this blog. I got it elsewhere and am not allowed by current mods to say where. I got it and worked with it and improved phenomenally. And there were confounding factors and I tested the ideas and got hurt. Then retested the helpful ideas and resolved old problems. Then I wrote about it and found even more people with similar experience.
That is all anecdotal experience. No science is every done with out seeing anecdotal experience first. Now do your science. Quit with the heck-bent-for-leather spreading of condescending FearUncertaintyDoubt. Better yet go get a job with the Gates Foundation and test some of his better ideas to spread on populations too poor to stop him.
Yep, that's pretty much the reply I expected. Zero comprehension. Good luck with your version of "science".
Why is no one moderating this kind of personal attack? Yet Joe is being pushed out of the forum, someone who posts testimonials of this low vitamin A diet stuff actually working? Gadzooks is just like Jessica.