Last year in my Seven-Year Update post I mentioned that I was looking into the politically hot topic of viruses. When I first started to look into it I quickly came to the realization that the very basic science and fundamental understanding of viruses is almost completely wrong. It’s on par with so-called vitamin A science, and maybe even a lot worse.
Last year I said that I was going to write a more comprehensive investigation regarding viruses. But, as the censorship and squashing of any non-conventional information on the topic was cranked up to the maximum effort possible, I felt it wasn’t the right time for a lengthy blog post or maybe a new ebook on the topic. Unfortunately, that plays right into the hands of big pharma and their puppets in government under their control. Although I’m a complete no-body I think it’s important to choose the right time for picking such a battle. I decided that now’s not the time for it. Hopefully, the pandemic response by our governments and the medical establishment over the last two years has made it crystal clear to everyone just how incredibly corrupt the system is. What happened in Canada earlier this year is so disgusting to me I just can’t put it down into writing how I feel about it. So, for now, all I’m going to say about viruses is what’s below.
“Viruses” sure aren’t what we are being told they are. I think a key point we all need to fully appreciate is that viruses are not “alive”, and never ever become “alive”. Therefore, they are most certainly not parasites or pathogens. They don’t and can’t “evolve” or mutate. They consume no food, nor energy, nor resources. They can’t and don’t ever reproduce themselves. They have no locomotion, no organelles, no respiration, etc, etc. They have no life force, no will, no intent. And, contrary to a recent statement from a very prominent public health official they are not “clever”. They actually have the same intelligence as a rock. Therefore, they are not, and cannot be, out to get us. They are also not out to perpetuate their own “species”, because they are not a “species”, nor any life form. They are not living entities even by the wildest stretch of the imagination.
The key understanding is that all so-called viruses are manufactured by cells; and almost all of them in our bodies were made by our own cells. Therefore, viruses never “replicate” themselves, and they don’t hijack or trick the cell into doing it for them. They are simply proteins assembled by our own cells. However, some of these proteins can harm us. They are ones that contain defectively structured mRNA proteins. These are usually strands of bad RNA that the cell has decided is too defective to use. These defective garbage proteins (RNA molecules) are potentially so dangerous that they can’t be discarded without first putting them into a protective wrapper. Much like with the RBP that’s used to protect cells from vA’s toxicity. Thus, these protective wrappers are the famous protein capsids surrounding most “viruses.” But, given the right circumstances and conditions some of these proteins can start a chain-reaction, and we might get sick from it running out of control for too long.
There’s more to it of course. Since most harmful “viruses” are just defectively made messenger proteins we need to understand what causes the defective mRNA proteins in the first place. Well, since it is now established that retinoic acid can, and does, fracture DNA it should be one of the prime suspects. There’s no question there are other toxins and environmental hazards to blame sometimes too. But, the key takeaway here is that for the most part “viruses” don’t cause disease. Rather, it’s the direct opposite. Disease causes “viruses” to be created.
To use a more concrete example, let’s say someone gets diagnosed with hepatitis. Doctors using the now infamous PCR test will usually find a large number of “viruses” and claim the person has acquired a “viral infection” and that infection has caused the disease. But, no, that’s not it at all. The slowly developing liver disease with its corresponding massive number of damaged and dying cells is causing these cells and cell fragments to produce the “viruses.” Viruses are the artifacts of the diseased tissue.
Sometimes these proteins can be transferred between people and that can start a chain reaction in certain vulnerable people. However, we don’t ever really get “infected” with the “virus”. Rather we get contaminated by other people’s defective proteins.
I believe that if people are healthy, and have low vA levels then “viruses” pose almost no risk at all. Of course, there’s still much more to the story here. There’s also a fascinating understanding that there’s a hugely beneficial and critical role many so-called “viruses” play in our health and even our evolution. That understanding is that the vast majority of the billions of the “viruses” that are circulating in our bodies on any given day are actually extra-cellular message capsules. These message capsules are used to communicate with other cells and organs in the body. The cells of the body have formed a gigantic network of communication between themselves. The data packets used on this network are mRNA proteins encapsulated within “viruses” and exosomes. Darwin was correct (for those who have actually read his book). It’s not random mutations driving our evolution. Rather it’s our life experiences that’s programming the genetic code in our offspring. The driving mechanism of that programming is via “virus” encapsulated messages. So, when it comes to truly understanding viruses our current medical science is in the absolute stone age. I’ve only scratched the surface of it here.
But, obviously, big pharma needs to keep the myth of “scary and deadly viruses” alive to stoke endless fear and boost endless massive profits from their vaccines for them.
Bottom line, for the most part, “viruses” are a giant scam.
My Prison Food and Night blindness
I reported in last year’s annual update that I had once again encountered a period of reduced night vision. It was also accompanied by having quite dry eyes first thing in the mornings. Oh yes, I know that those are some of the key, if not the de facto, symptoms of vA deficiency. But, of course, I don’t believe vA deficiency even exists. I also think that it’s impossible to have a deficiency in a highly toxic molecule. Moreover, if these symptoms were due to a vA deficiency then they should have shown up and progressively gotten worse as time went on. Except, that did not happen. The periods of reduced night vision were sporadic and I had always recovered from it. My previous incidents of “night blindness” occurred in the winter months when the air here in Calgary, AB is very dry. However, oddly last year the condition was most notable in August. Coincidentally, last summer the city was covered in a lot of smoke from forest fires. It lasted for at least two months. So, at first, I rationalized that it was probably just the excessive smoke exposure that caused it to occur in the summer months this time. However, as the smoke finally cleared my dry eyes really didn’t get much better. So, what the heck was really going on?
Last year, as I am doing so this year, I was sticking pretty strictly to my diet of rice, bison/beef, and black beans. Although I usually cook one cup (measured dry) of rice per day I almost never consume it all in one day. Most days it is more like a half cup. So, a pretty standard practice for me is to put the remaining rice in a container and put it in the fridge. Then, the next day I’ll take the leftover cold rice, and either freshly cooked or cold leftover meat, and some cold black beans and dump it into a bowl. Then I’ll boil some water and add it to the bowl to make what I call my “soup”.
My wife hates that I call it “soup”. Whenever I call it that, she so lovingly tells me: “That’s not soup, it’s prison food!” Yes, it’s darn plain and boring. Except, I don’t think it’s really that bad either. It sure makes my meal planning and food shopping super simple. It’s also super easy and fast to put together. But, she’s right that it does lack flavor. So, as I also mentioned in last year’s update, I had gotten into the habit of spicing it up by adding some granulated dry onion powder to it. With that addition I think I could legitimately call it a soup. Sometimes my wife would dice up and fry onions and I added that to my soup rather than the onion powder.
Then, I got to thinking about it. If just cutting into an onion can quite quickly and quite strongly irritate the eyes then maybe, just maybe, it’s not such a good idea to be eating onions either. With that thought I completely stopped adding the onions / onion powder and went back to the “prison food” version of my soup. Quite amazingly, within four weeks my night vision completely recovered. Within four months my corresponding dry eyes also fully recovered. I’d rate my current night vision as being excellent.
I think this is an intriguing little sub-experiment in isolating it down to one probable cause. The only deviation / change in my diet last year was the addition of the onions and then following that change my night vision problems developed. Then when I made the one (and really only) change of stopping the consumption of onions the problem quickly resolved. So, yes, unlike viruses, I do think many plants are indeed out to get us. For me at least, onions are one of them. If you are eating onions and are also experiencing dry eyes and night vision problems you might want to try to replicate my findings.
That’s it for now. Overall, my health and well-being is currently very good. I’ll post a more comprehensive health update in August.
I’ve now reached the seven-year point on my ultra-low vitamin A diet experiment. My overall health has remained good this year. As like with last year’s update, I’d say I’ve only seen some small incremental improvements this year. I feel that my skin texture in some areas has slightly improved, and that I have noticeably less gray hair on my chest. But I do still have two age spots on my face that seemed to have only faded a bit more in colour this past year. I think these two age spots are ever-so-slowly improving but I have no idea if they will ever fully recover. It could be that the skin has been permanently damaged in these areas.
Thus, as expected, this year I don’t have any big health improvements to report on. However, what’s surprising, even after seven years of following my extremely low vA diet, there is still some progress being made. It’s quite clear to me now that making a full and complete recovery from vA toxicity is a very long and slow process.
I’ve not changed my diet much over the last year. I’m still sticking to what I consider to be my primary “safe” foods. That’s rice, black beans, and beef / bison.
However, as I did last year, for a few months this year I swapped out the rice and replaced it with a simple white bread. The primary reason I made that change was out of the concern of getting too much arsenic from the rice. However, I did not have any lab work, or noticeable health reasons, to support that concern. I did email the rice producer of the brand that I use regularly asking them about the arsenic content of their product. They once again claimed that their products have no arsenic. Of course, I don’t really believe that, and they did not back up their claims with lab reports. Anyhow, after three months of eating the white bread, I decided to change back to mostly using white and brown rice again as a source of carbs. There’s no big reason that I changed back, other than I find the rice slightly easier to digest.
I’m still getting quite a lot of emails from people asking about my personal diet. I don’t think people should try to pattern their own diets based on what I do. I really think people need to find what works best for themselves. Moreover, I want to be clear that I’m not continuing to follow my extreme (and admittedly somewhat crazy) diet for health reasons. I’m sticking to it because I’m trying to prove a scientific point. Therefore, I don’t think other people need, or should try, to mimic my ultra-low vA consumption. Rather, I think that just being on a low vA diet is probably wiser, safer, and more sustainable.
Anyways, for those who are interested, my current diet is composed of:
White / Brown rice – usually white rice for 2-3 days, and then followed by a day with brown rice
Black Beans – organic canned
Beef / Bison – usually ground – about 75% of the time I go with Bison
Salt & occasionally some onion powder
My daily amounts are usually:
Rice ~ ¾ cup (measured dry)
Black Beans ~ 250- 350 ml ~ ¾ of a can
Beef / Bisson ~ 300 – 400 grams
I generally eat two meals per day and don’t snack much. But if I do snack it’s usually toasted white bread with honey.
I very rarely take supplements. However, I did try a thiamine supplement for several months this year. I had no detectable positive or negative response from taking it and have therefore stopped it.
Daily Calorie Consumption
I’ve been tracking my daily food consumption a bit more closely this year using a mobile app (MyNetDiary).
My daily food intake is usually about 1,500 calories. Some days it’s a bit more, some days it’s a bit less. Anyways, that’s probably about ½ of the daily calories that I was consuming before starting my low vA diet. Although 1,500 calories per day appears to be too low for an adult man, I find it perfectly adequate. Actually, I think that 1,500 calories per day is still a bit too much for me now.
As I have for the last 4-5 years, I’ve maintained a steady weight again this year. I’m holding at about 160-163 lbs (73 kgs). However, I do feel that I am still about 5 lbs (2kgs) overweight. For some reason, that last 5 lbs is just very stubborn and wants to hang around. But I’m not concerned enough about it to try harder to lose it either.
Some people might assume that the reduced need for calories is due to my older age. However, I don’t think so. That’s because I know a young man who’s also been on a low vitamin A diet for the last two years and he’s reported a very similar finding. His daily calorie intake is about 1/3 to ½ of what it was before he started with the diet.
I think the explanation for needing fewer calories can be at least partially explained by:
Overall metabolism is just running more efficiently.
A reduced rate of cellular turnover.
A significant reduction in background inflammation. I’ve read that about 25% of our daily calories is used just to fuel our immune system. Now with a low vA status, and my body no longer constantly auto-immuning in a futile struggle to fight off a phantom pathogen I need 20% or so fewer daily calories.
Whatever the mechanism is, I think this reduced need for daily calories is quite intriguing.
I get a weekly summary report from my food diary tracking app. Here are some noteworthy warnings I get each week.
Your average daily 115 mg of calcium does not reach 1000 mg recommended for you. Rich sources include dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese), calcium-fortified soy milk and orange juice, sardines and salmon with bones. The calcium in dark green leafy vegetables is less bioavailable since it binds with plant acids.
Your average daily 4 IU of vitamin A does not reach 3000 IU recommended for you. Animal sources: liver, milk, cheese, and eggs. Plant sources (in the form of beta-carotene): orange colored fruits and vegetables (carrots, sweet potatoes, apricots, cantaloupe, and pumpkin) and dark green leafy vegetables (e.g. spinach and kale).
Your average daily 0 mg of vitamin C does not reach 90 mg recommended for you. Rich sources: most fruits and vegetables, but especially citrus, strawberries, cantaloupe, spinach, broccoli, and peppers.
Your average daily 115 mg of calcium does not reach 1000 mg recommended for you.
It looks like my daily calcium intake is about 1/10th of the RDA. I knew that I was low on calcium intake, but not that low. I just assumed that the beans and water I consume would somehow provide enough calcium.
But seeing this warning show up in the weekly report I was getting a bit concerned about what the long-term impact of following my diet for the last 7 years has had on my bones. Thus, I recently had a bone density scan (DEXA) performed. The scan results were surprisingly very good. My bone density is perfectly normal for my age, and I was told that I have absolutely nothing to worry about. I think this is another big win for a low vA diet. Apparently, that recommended 1000 mg / day is not needed if vA is not silently picking away at our bones. And, we probably don’t want a bunch of needless extra calcium in our diet that might otherwise contribute to clogging our arteries etc.
Although seeing that my current bone density was normal for my age was reassuring, I’m not exactly thrilled with that result either. I don’t feel that having just normal bone density for my age is ideal. I’d rather it be better than normal. Unfortunately, I have no reference data as to where I started from regarding bone density. I don’t know if it’s gotten better or if it’s gotten worse in the last 7 years. So, to be on the safe side I’ll probably start adding some mineral water to my diet this coming year. I’ll re-test my bone density again in 5 years.
Vitamin A warning:
Your average daily4 IU of vitamin A does not reach 3000 IU.
I’m not sure if that 4 IU the app is reporting is calculated as being sourced from the beans or from the beef / bison. Naturally, I wish it was closer to 0 IU /day, but I’m still okay with it. Oh, I know there will be a few naysayers who’ll claim that it’s those 4 IU that’s keeping me from going blind and not having all of my epithelial / endothelial tissues and their corresponding organs disintegrate. But that’s one of the reasons I make regular blood donations. I think the blood donations easily offset the trivial 4 IU I still might get from food.
Vitamin C warning:
Your average daily 0 mg of vitamin C does not reach 90 mg recommended for you.
I knew that my vitamin C intake was very low, but kind of like with calcium, I was assuming it would somehow be OK. Based on the early toxicity studies that I had read I was also pretty sure that scurvy was misdiagnosed vA toxicity. But there’s no question that 0 mg of vitamin C/day is awfully low.
Still, I’m not concerned enough about it, and I don’t plan to supplement with vitamin C.
Anyways, after ~5 years with a very low vitamin C intake I have no sign of scurvy. It’s the opposite. My teeth and gums are feeling really strong and solid; like never better. I think this is another win for a low vA diet. However, I do still think vitamin C is probably important in the early stages of taking on a low vA diet.
Here’s an interesting little ditty to consider:
A series of studies using guinea pigs with chronic latent vitamin C deficiency has provided clear evidence that bile acid synthesis is reduced in this condition.
Turley SD, West CE, Horton BJ. The role of ascorbic acid in the regulation of cholesterol metabolism and in thepathogenesis of artherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis. 1976 Jul-Aug;24(1-2):1-18. doi: 10.1016/0021-9150(76)90060-5. PMID: 942515.
Could it be that without adequate vitamin C we have a much harder time in clearing vitamin A via bile? I don’t know, but maybe that’s the real mechanism of action of how vitamin C appears to be able to prevent scurvy?
Sleep quality and Dreaming
One of the health changes that I had reported on in my first eBook was the return of dreaming at night. I was just trying to be complete and reported on it thinking it was probably just a weird personal little quirk. I now think this is an important finding as a number of other people are reporting the same effect. And thus, it’s not just a personal quirk.
I’ve attributed the return of nighttime dreaming to a likely drop in cortisol levels (but I have no personal lab tests to back up that theory). Regardless, for the last 5-6 years of my low vA diet I was getting a pretty good sleep. However, what’s surprised me is that it has kind of kicked into high gear this last year. The intensity and vividness of my dreams is often rather amazing.
Also, now when I go to bed I almost always fall asleep within just a few minutes of putting my head down on the pillow. I can also nap almost on demand, being tired or not, and almost at any time of the day. I’m kind of like a cat or dog in this regard where it appears these animals can nap anytime they want during the day.
The bigger change that I’ve noticed is that I now begin to dream in what seems to be only minutes after going to sleep. It also appears that I dream almost all night long. The same thing happens if I take even a one-hour long nap. I nearly immediately start dreaming. It’s quite remarkable. But like with so many other things on this diet, the intensity of the dreaming changes from month-to-month. Nevertheless, compared to where I started from seven years ago, my sleep quality has vastly improved. How can that not be a good thing? Clearly, vitamin A toxicity can profoundly and negatively affect our cognitive wellbeing.
I feel that my cardiovascular health is about the same as it was last year. The numbers are:
Historical the numbers looks like this:
My resting blood pressure is usually around 110/60 and my resting heart rate is about 50-55 BPM. My HbA1C has remained at 5.1% this year.
I was planning on getting more lab work done this year for this 7-year update report. I would have liked to have had a liver enzyme panel and a cortisol level test done. However, these are not discretionary labs that my GP would authorize. Last year I used an on-line lab service called LetsGetChecked.com. I was quite impressed with their service last year and was planning on using them again this year for these additional labs. Unfortunately, they have stopped providing their services in Canada.
Vision and Eye Health
I had another comprehensive eye exam performed a few weeks ago. The results were that my eye health and vision remain excellent. There’s no sign of any eye disease. There’s no glaucoma, no retinopathy, no cataract, no macular degeneration, etc. The pressure in the eye is again a low normal (no inflammation). My vision is also very good. It’s not quite perfect-perfect, but I still don’t need reading nor driving glasses. At the end of the exam, the eye doc said: “Whatever it is that you’re doing with your lifestyle and diet, keep doing it because your eyes are in great shape”. Naturally, I did not mention my low vA diet.
However, like what happened a few years ago, I did go through another period of poor night vision for several months this year.
I continue to make regular blood donations. I was having some quirky issues with the plasma donations (my blood was sometimes clogging up the machine), so I’ve gone back to just making regular whole blood donations.
Exercise and Fitness
I’ve been far less physically active this year than compared to last. The primary reason is my new work-from-home lifestyle does not require me to make the daily bike commute. The other reason is that all our gyms and other fitness facilities have been shut down for most of the year.
As with last year’s update, the takeaway from this year’s is that it’s clearly more evidence that so-called “vitamin A” is not a vitamin at all. I mean seriously, after seven years of having virtually no vA in my diet, and having no adverse effects, and my health has only gotten vastly better, how can anyone still legitimately claim it to be a “vitamin” needed by humans? I firmly believe that vitamin A is nothing more than a toxin and we are therefore hugely better off without it. I’ll continue with my ultra-low vA diet for at least the next three years.
Other thoughts – the current viral issue
I’ve spent a lot of time this year learning about so-called viruses. I say so-called, because I quickly concluded that they are not even really “viruses” at all. At least not in the sense of the accepted definition of that term. I see the science of virology as being as dodgy and on par with that of so-called vitamin A science. Vitamin A is not a “vitamin” and “viruses” are not really viruses. I’ll try to write more about this topic in the new year.
What’s emerged with the COVID-19 pandemic is a peculiar pattern of vulnerability. It’s being widely reported that older people are the most severely affected by the infection and are the demographic most likely to die from it. Whereas, children and teenagers often appear to sail right through the infection with only minor symptoms, or the just having symptoms equivalent to a cold or minor flu. Yet, at the lower end of the age spectrum, say in one and two-year-old’s, the severity of the diseases increases again.
Children of all ages are susceptible to COVID-19 and while their symptoms are generally less severe than those of adults, a small percentage — particularly preschoolers and infants — can become seriously ill, according to a new study.
An equally important observation is that many thousands of people have tested positive for having had COVID-19 and yet have remained completely symptom free. Therefore, it’s very critical to appreciate that just getting COVID-19 is not sufficient on its own to cause disease. Clearly, it’s COVID-19 and something else when combined that leads to the disease. What is that something else? We should all be very curious and striving to find out what it is.
In the context of COVID-19 infections, the general assumption is that older people just have weaker immune systems and are thus less able to fight off the virus. Except, it’s not just age that’s the primary factor. Rather it’s a person’s age combined with their pre-existing conditions, or comorbidities, that somehow makes them more vulnerable to having a severe response. Therefore, we can almost right away dismiss that assumption of a “weak” immune system being to blame because it is not at all just older people who succumb to the infection. Some younger people, even in their 30’s, are dying from the infection too. It’s just much more common to have a severe response in these younger people primarily when they have comorbidities. Therefore, the pre-existing comorbidities are the bigger risk factor. The cited highest risk comorbidities are diabetes, obesity, asthma, other autoimmune diseases, and cardiovascular diseases. If you’ve followed my blog for a while now, you’ll know that these are all diseases that I’ve been attributing to long term vitamin-A toxicity.
Let’s see if we can make some sense out of this. Could it be that there’s some mechanism whereby people with a higher level of vitamin-A storage could be more severely impacted by viral infections, and especially that of COVID-19? Firstly, let’s look at some interesting data regarding the liver storage concentration by age. For that, we’ll look at this 1973 study from Mitchell et al.
Source: G. Vaughn Mitchell, M. Young, C. R. Seward, Vitamin-A and carotene levels of a selected population in metropolitan Washington, D. C, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 26, Issue 9, September 1973, Pages 992–997, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/26.9.992
Quite interestingly, here we have a similar U-shaped curve showing up in the data. Note that the horizontal red line at 286 μg/g is the documented toxic level for liver storage. Remarkably, this means that a large number of young children say from 1 to 5 years old are in the toxic range for liver storage. Then, as they get older their liver’s volume increases (roughly as a cubed function of its cross-sectional size) and they outpace the inbound dietary consumption rate. Then, as people get older their liver concentration slowly saturates to where they move into the toxic storage range once again, and through to the end of life. Let’s remember that this data is from back in 1973, just at the beginning of the foolish North American vitamin-A supplementation programs in dairy, breakfast cereals, etc.. Obviously, the liver saturation numbers will be far worse if sampled today. Just imagine the blue U-shaped curve being shifted up higher on the chart to where more people are over the red toxicity line. So, it’s no wonder why so many people are sick and diseased today. They are, by the very definition of the toxic level of vitamin-A storage, beyond that point. This also corresponds quite well with the fact that about one-third of the American population has NAFLD. That’s all bad enough, but could this somehow also make them more vulnerable to viral infections? Well, this has actually been well documented to be the case for a long time. But, for now, there’s one data point on the above chart that we need to focus in on.
What’s documented in the Mitchell study, and in others, is that very young infants have very low (and often even non-detectable) liver storage levels of vitamin-A.
The Amazing Infant Immune System
So, what do you suppose happens to very young infants exposed to the measles virus? Well, amazingly, often nothing adverse happens. That’s correct, they usually remain symptom and disease-free. Their immune system simply clears the virus. Additionally, most of them have probably acquired true life-long immunity from future infections of the measles virus.
Likewise, just what do you suppose happens to a very young infant exposed to the Dengue virus? Well, once again, often nothing adverse happens. Yes, those infants with their supposedly “weak” immune systems just clear the virus.
Next, just what do you suppose happens to a very young infant who is exposed to, and is subsequently infected by, the truly horrifying syphilis bacteria? Very often, they too remain symptom-free, and their “weak” immune systems clear the bacterial infection!
Even more astonishingly, what do you suppose happens to a very young infant who has a finger or toe severed? Amazingly it often grows back! Yes, these very young infants are amazing at surviving and dealing with very adverse events and pathogen attacks. Infants are starting in life with a great, if not perfect, immune system. Sadly, that all quickly changes once the so-called “medical experts” start administering their “health” intervention programs.
Yet, a great misconception persists in medical science in that very young infants are thought to have poorly developed immune systems. One of the primary reasons they make this assumption is because very young kids simply do not respond to vaccinations. Please consider this meta-analyses of the seroconversion rates by age:
Measles vaccination below 9 months of age: Systematic literature review and meta analyses of effects and safety
In a meta‐analyses of 20 papers, the proportion of infants who seroconverted (%SC) depended on the age at MCV1 vaccination. It increased from 50% (95% CI 29‐71%) at age 4 months to 67% (95% CI 51‐81%) at 5 months, 76% (95% CI 71‐82%) at 6 months, 72% (95% CI 56‐87%) at 7 months and 85% (69‐97%) at 8 months.
For the very youngest of children, there is only about a 50% seroconversion (meaning their immune response created detectable antibodies). The seroconversion rates then increase as they get older. Except, this phenomenon is not because their immune system is maturing. Rather, it’s because their serum levels of vitamin-A are creeping up with age too. We know this because the same effect has been studied in fully grown adults. In adults with abnormally low vitamin-A status, they too have a low seroconversion rate of ~50% when administered vaccines. Then, from other studies, we learn that when adults have their vitamin-A levels pre-boosted up before vaccination, then there is a higher “seroconversion” rate of around the more “normal” ~85% rates. Of course, most vaccinations are really low dose deliberate viral infections.
The known low “seroconversion” rate is why most childhood vaccines are delayed until two months of age. Some researchers claim that the extra vitamin-A has “enhanced” the immune response. But, we know that’s not exactly correct. What’s really happened is that the vitamin-A has enabled the virus to more rapidly replicate, and that then results in the “enhanced” immune response. But, do not for one second think that getting a higher seroconversion rate is a good thing to have happen. It’s the exact opposite. It’s clear evidence that higher background vitamin-A levels are resulting in the increased replication rates of the vaccine’s virus. And, vice versa, the run-away viral infection has increased the toxicity of their background vitamin-A levels too.
This is a super, critically, important point to understand. This is the underlying mechanism as to why kids in India and other countries of Southeast Asia can have such a devastating outcome from a measles infection. With high, or even moderate, vitamin-A serum levels, and a lack of sufficient dietary fats and proteins, the measles infection also increases the toxicity of their endogenous and circulating vitamin-A levels! It is also the underlying reason why some kids die when given their vaccines.
What’s going on here? As usual, it’s multifactorial, and there’s much more to the story. What we do know, and also very contrary to widely-held myths, is that vitamin-A actually subdues the immune system. What’s also been documented for like the last 50 years now is that vitamin-A weakens and otherwise damages cell membranes. It also damages the mitochondrial membranes. It’s trivial to see why too. Both the cholesterol molecule and the side-chains of the vitamin-A molecule are made up of isoprene groups. These isoprene groups are the base compound for natural rubber. So, if you’ve ever wondered why the cholesterol deposits surgeons pull out of arteries looks so much like rubber, it is because it is rubber. Ever wonder why the cholesterol deposits are yellow in color? It’s in good part because it has picked up and encapsulated the vitamin-A, and carotenoid molecules, within it.
Carotenoids are incorporated into very low density lipoproteins (VLDL) and exported from the liver into the blood. VLDL are converted to LDL by lipoprotein lipase on the surface of blood vessels. Plasma membrane-associated receptors of peripheral tissue cells bind apolipoprotein B100 on the surface of LDL, initiating receptor-mediated uptake of LDL and their lipid contents.
Source: Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10026.html Page 94
Now, just as cholesterol with its isoprene groups nestles into the lipid bi-layer of the cellular membranes, so too does vitamin-A. This obviously weakens the integrity of the cell membrane.
Could the weakened cell membrane then make the cell more susceptible to viral infections? You bet it can. This has been documented in the context of HIV infections. Supplementing HIV patients with vitamin-A causes a more rapid replication of the virus, and results in worse outcomes. So, we have multiple pieces of real-world evidence that vitamin-A causes a faster replication rate of viruses. What about some laboratory-based evidence? Well, there is indeed, and even specifically for the coronaviruses.
Retinoic acid modification of cell culture used for reproduction of enteropathogenic viruses.
Abstract The 0.001-0.005% retinoic acid injection into the growth cultural medium of prime and continue cell cultures 12-24h before inoculation considerably raised the cell sensitivity to animal entero- and coronaviruses. The entero- and coronaviruses concentrations in cultural medium increased by 10(1.58) and 10(1.68)TCID 50/1.0 respectively. The optimized parameters of the cell culture processing for the enteropathogenic viruses reproduction improvement are proposed.
And a similar phenomenon is observed in the context of Zika infections. Cells being forced into “differentiation” via retinoic acid increased their infectivity to viruses.
Differentiation enhances Zika virus infection of neuronal brain cells
Here we investigated ZIKV infectivity in neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells, both undifferentiated and following differentiation with retinoic acid. We found that multiple ZIKV strains, representing both the prototype African and contemporary Asian epidemic lineages, were able to replicate in SH-SY5Y cells. Differentiation with resultant expression of mature neuron markers increased infectivity in these cells, and the extent of infectivity correlated with degree of differentiation.
So, we now have good evidence of vitamin-A (and specifically retinoic acid) promoting the replication of viruses. Of course, we all know that increased background storage levels of vitamin-A simply means more endogenously produced retinoic acid.
None of this is new information. As with most things related to vitamin-A science, it’s been well known about and reported on for a long time. Here’s a great paper from Anthony Mawson discussing the same comorbidity patterns in the context of the 2009 SARS-CoV infections. Back then it was also the people with the pre-existing conditions of heart disease, asthma, and autoimmune diseases who were at higher risks for severe disease and death.
Role of Fat-Soluble Vitamins A and D in the Pathogenesis of Influenza: A New Perspective
Anthony R. Mawson
Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Health Sciences, College of Public Service, Jackson State University, Received 4 April 2012; Accepted 3 May 2012 Academic Editors: M. C. W. Chan, N. Kawai, and Y. Lai
The Symptoms of Influenza A Infection Are Similar to Those of Hypervitaminosis A
As noted, the clinical spectrum of influenza A infection, including avian influenza H5N1, is not restricted to the lung and can range from mild influenza-like illness to severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute lung injury (ALI), and multiorgan failure . Fever, rhinitis, myalgia, malaise, headache, cough, dyspnea, sore throat, and fatigue are the main presenting symptoms. Complications include pneumonia, bronchitis, or sinusitis, and rarely encephalitis, transverse myelitis, Reye syndrome, myocarditis, or pericarditis .
Mawson does a great job of explaining how and why this can be related to an overload of vitamin-A, and why a low vitamin D/A ratio is a very important factor. Oddly, this paper was not picked up by the major journals, say such as the BMJ, or Lancet. Why was there so little interest in this Mawson paper? Could it be that the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical industry have no genuine interest in understanding what’s really enabling and driving viral infections? Could it be that their primary, if not only interest, is their commercial interests? Of course, it is. These companies have multi-billion dollar vaccine divisions. Therefore, any non-vaccine solution to viral infections would be a serious and direct threat to that ongoing annual business model. Therefore, it is incredibly unlikely that we’ll ever see a non-vaccine based solution developed by the pharmaceutical industry. What if we all came to the understanding that the best way to protect ourselves from viral infections was simply to keep our vitamin-A consumption very low? That could devastate the industry. Therefore, that information cannot be allowed to be developed and confirmed. Therefore, the Mawson paper must be ignored.
The ACE2 Receptors
There’s been a lot of press lately about the important role that the ACE2 receptors play in COVID-19 infections. The virus’s glycoprotein binds to the cell membrane protein angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and that’s how it gains entry into the human cell.
The novel coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV) uses the SARS-coronavirus receptor ACE2 and the cellular protease TMPRSS2 for entry into target cells
Here, we demonstrate that 2019-nCoV-SusestheSARS–coronavirusreceptor, ACE2, for entry and the cellularprotease TMPRSS2 for 2019-nCoV-S priming. A TMPRSS2 inhibitor blocked entry and might constitute a treatment option. Finally, we show that the serum form a convalescent SARS patient neutralized 2019–nCoV-S-driven entry.
Naturally, with the ACE2 receptor being the target site of virus entrance into the cell there’s been a ton of frantic research into looking into ways to block or down regulate the ACE2 receptors.
Correspondingly, there’s been a ton of interest and media attention given to a well-established anti-malaria drug named chloroquine. Here’s a study from back in 2005 discussing it.
Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread
Results We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2.
Therefore, we can see that when the ACE2 receptors are upregulated, viral infection and replication rates increase. Conversely, when the ACE2 receptors are downregulated, viral infection and replication rates decrease.
Yet, something really strange happened with the medical establishment and the mainstream media regarding the potential use of chloroquine as a treatment. These people immediately started attacking it and doing everything they can to discredit it. Why would they do that? Could it be that chloroquine is cheap, off-patent, immediately available and most of all a potentially competitive alternative to the planned vaccine they have in the works?
Dr. Anthony Fauci almost jumps to the podium and claims that the evidence for its effectiveness is only anecdotal, and there is not enough evidence to support claims that chloroquine is effective in combatting COVID-19. But, that’s not quite true. There are existing clinical trials, and back in 2005, even its probable functional mechanism was understood too. Additionally, with very few other immediate options, why not quickly get going on finding out? Why so aggressively downplay it and try to dismiss it as an option? Who and what is he trying to protect?
Why are we no better prepared today for a viral pandemic than were we in 1918?
The last great viral pandemic to ravish the human population was the so-called Spanish Flu of 1918. So, now over 100 years later, we still don’t have any really effective treatments for viral infections. How can that be? After sucking trillions of dollars out of the worldwide economies the pharmaceutical industry has almost nothing meaningful and effective against viral infections. Sure, they have the horrible DNA, RNA chain terminator class of drugs that they claim to be “anti-viral” in action. But, not only are these drugs very expensive, they come with catastrophic “side-effects” that often decimate the overall health of the patient. They are not “medicines”, they are simply poisons that break the cell’s ability to build any proteins at all.
Fortunately, ER and intensive care teams are vastly more capable today in preventing people from dying from viral infections than compared to back in 1918.
What really matters most right now is finding remedies for people most severely affected by the virus. Contrary to the advice of many “experts”, taking vitamin-A is not one of them. The very last thing anyone one should be doing at this time is supplementing with so-called vitamin-A.
You must be logged in to post a comment.