Low Toxin Supplements PSA: DO NOT START ON NIACIN IF YOU ARE STILL LIVING A TOXIC LIFESTYLE

[Soren]

It's for a growing baby that is growing at an incredible rate, are you still growing at an incredible rate?

Fair point, but do we really think that the same nutrients that are vital for growth of children are poisonous and toxic for adults? Perhaps in high amounts they can be bad like anything else but the implication seems to be that all dairy and vitamin a is toxic, how can that be the case when from the very earliest days of life the main sustenance a human gets human milk that is full of these supposedly toxic and poisonous ingredients?

Can a babies liver really be so different to an adult that dairy goes from being a vital nutrient for an infant to one that is a "liver destroyer" for an adult?

Are you saying that the nutrients of calcium and vitamin A are bad for babies too but because they are growing so fast that they can somehow avoid the negatives of these nutrients?

I'm really struggling on this. The best i can see is that some people with other issues can see benefits from removing certain nutrients like vitamin A because they have other issues like a poor thyroid or other toxic chemical buildup, heavy metal poisoning, or they are lacking some other nutrient that makes processing calcium or vitamin A very difficult and may cause more problems.

I can even get behind the idea of a very low vitamin A diet perhaps that is the better way for adults but the way it is being portrayed as some deadly toxin that is slowly killing everybody I just don't see how that can be possible when there are many studies that show babies without sufficient vitamin A are much more likely to die and suffer from a whole range of medical problems.

Impact of supplementing newborn infants with vitamin A on early infant mortality: community based randomised trial in southern India

"Participants 11 619 newborn infants allocated 24 000 IU oral vitamin A or placebo on days 1 and 2 after delivery.

Main outcome measure Primary outcome measure was mortality at age 6 months.

Results Infants in the vitamin A group had a 22% reduction in total mortality (95% confidence interval 4% to 37%) compared with those in the placebo group. Vitamin A had an impact on mortality between two weeks and three months after treatment, with no additional impact after three months.

Conclusion Supplementing newborn infants with vitamin A can significantly reduce early infant mortality."

 

[charlie]

Fair point, but do we really think that the same nutrients that are vital for growth of children are poisonous and toxic for adults? Perhaps in high amounts they can be bad like anything else but the implication seems to be that all dairy and vitamin a is toxic, how can that be the case when from the very earliest days of life the main sustenance a human gets human milk that is full of these supposedly toxic and poisonous ingredients?

How do we know that the modern day woman is providing the best breast milk for her baby? How do we know if the mother was on a low toxin diet that the breast milk would have much less of "vitamin A" or calcium? The breast milk contains many things from the mother as that is also a detox route.

 

[Soren]

How do we know that the modern day woman is providing the best breast milk for her baby? How do we know if the mother was on a low toxin diet that the breast milk would have much less of "vitamin A" or calcium? The breast milk contains many things from the mother as that is also a detox route.

I would imagine that the modern day women most likely is not but this study was done with women in India a country with very high rates of malnutrition so it would likely be even worse than in the west.

Although one thing about the study which was particularly interesting that does require further analysis is that it appears to show that the key to reducing the mortality in infants was giving them a large dose of vitamin A shortly after birth (1-2 days) and that supplementing the mother with vitamin a pre or post birth or the child after birth did not make a difference in mortality.

"Another study in Nepal found no effect on early infant mortality from supplementing women with vitamin A or β carotene before and during pregnancy.17 In contrast, supplementing infants with 50 000 IU of vitamin A within 24 hours of birth was safe and associated with a 64% reduction in infant mortality.18"

 

[mosaic01]

Although one thing about the study which was particularly interesting that does require further analysis is that it appears to show that the key to reducing the mortality in infants was giving them a large dose of vitamin A shortly after birth (1-2 days) and that supplementing the mother with vitamin a pre or post birth or the child after birth did not make a difference in mortality.

This already tells us that whatever this study measures, it is not related to a vitamin effect of retinol.

What happens here is like giving newborns in horrid conditions an antibiotic, and then discovering that the antibiotic reduces overall mortality. Antibiotics are not essential for life, they only help acutely in conditions of bad nutrition and hygiene.

The study itself notes that "A large bolus of vitamin A early in the neonatal period may provide a stimulus to rapid maturation of both gut and respiratory epithelium. This matured epithelium may be more resistant to invasion by pathogens or may clear such organisms more efficiently."

This is merely a dangerous experiment on newborns who should be protected by better hygiene and birthing conditions instead of being forced to participate as lab rats. Retinol makes the body waste stem cells for repair.

 

[Soren]

This already tells us that whatever this study measures, it is not related to a vitamin effect of retinol.

What happens here is like giving newborns in horrid conditions an antibiotic, and then discovering that the antibiotic reduces overall mortality. Antibiotics are not essential for life, they only help acutely in conditions of bad nutrition and hygiene.

The study itself notes that "A large bolus of vitamin A early in the neonatal period may provide a stimulus to rapid maturation of both gut and respiratory epithelium. This matured epithelium may be more resistant to invasion by pathogens or may clear such organisms more efficiently."

This is dangerous experimentation on newborns who should be protected by better hygiene and birthing conditions instead of being forced to participate as lab rats. Retinol makes the body waste stem cells for repair.

I don't think you can say that the study does not tell us anything about the effect of retinol, a 64% reduction in one study and a 22% reduction in another I think is a pretty strong indicator that Vitamin A was playing a role in mortality. Perhaps it is not essential, perhaps it is acting like an antibiotic but it clearly it was having an effect.

Also i would hardly call the levels of vitamin A given here "dangerous experimentation" the doses given were not toxic and are extremely unlikely to have any negative effects. The dangerous experimentation according to these studies would be to not give the children Vitamin A as it seems that the chance of death is greatly reduced in those receiving vitamin A.

Can you expand a bit more on how Retinol makes the body waste stem cells for repair? i have not heard that before.

 

[mosaic01]

Also i would hardly call the levels of vitamin A given here "dangerous experimentation"

No one knows what a rapid maturation of the epithelium will do later in life. In the 20th century, large amounts of vitamin D were given to newborns directly after birth. A couple decades later this showed up at massively increased risk for a heart attacks, and there is also a possible connection to allergies.

The dangerous experimentation here is also about the larger philosophy at work. Instead of focusing on obvious deficits first, when it comes to infrastructure, hygiene, nutrition, safety, etc., they use retinol in doses that no newborn ever received in the history of mankind (statistically speaking), and then have the audacity to arrive at conclusions from there regarding a "vitamin effect".

"Scientists" are playing with fire by manipulating variables under the framework of "vitamins", while some substances may not be essential at all.

Doing a study about infant mortality in a country that has a mortality rate for newborns that's 10 times higher than in western countries makes it pointless to come to conclusions when looking at reductions in mortality. All it shows is that retinol protects against infections in an environment that is not suited for life. All under the assumption that these studies are not based on thin air and merely lies, pushed by some career hungry academics.

 

[InChristAlone]

Fair point, but do we really think that the same nutrients that are vital for growth of children are poisonous and toxic for adults? Perhaps in high amounts they can be bad like anything else but the implication seems to be that all dairy and vitamin a is toxic, how can that be the case when from the very earliest days of life the main sustenance a human gets human milk that is full of these supposedly toxic and poisonous ingredients?

Can a babies liver really be so different to an adult that dairy goes from being a vital nutrient for an infant to one that is a "liver destroyer" for an adult?

Are you saying that the nutrients of calcium and vitamin A are bad for babies too but because they are growing so fast that they can somehow avoid the negatives of these nutrients?

I'm really struggling on this. The best i can see is that some people with other issues can see benefits from removing certain nutrients like vitamin A because they have other issues like a poor thyroid or other toxic chemical buildup, heavy metal poisoning, or they are lacking some other nutrient that makes processing calcium or vitamin A very difficult and may cause more problems.

I can even get behind the idea of a very low vitamin A diet perhaps that is the better way for adults but the way it is being portrayed as some deadly toxin that is slowly killing everybody I just don't see how that can be possible when there are many studies that show babies without sufficient vitamin A are much more likely to die and suffer from a whole range of medical problems.

Impact of supplementing newborn infants with vitamin A on early infant mortality: community based randomised trial in southern India

"Participants 11 619 newborn infants allocated 24 000 IU oral vitamin A or placebo on days 1 and 2 after delivery.

Main outcome measure Primary outcome measure was mortality at age 6 months.

Results Infants in the vitamin A group had a 22% reduction in total mortality (95% confidence interval 4% to 37%) compared with those in the placebo group. Vitamin A had an impact on mortality between two weeks and three months after treatment, with no additional impact after three months.

Conclusion Supplementing newborn infants with vitamin A can significantly reduce early infant mortality."

It would be better to look at real scientists: Anthony Mawson PhD president of Chalfont Research Institute:
"Poor nutritional status has been suspected as a major causal factor, since vitamin A concentrations are low in preterm infants. However, even large enteral doses of vitamin A from birth fail to increase plasma concentrations of vitamin A or improve outcomes in preterm and/or extremely low birthweight infants. These findings suggest an underlying impairment in the secretion of vitamin A from the liver, where about 80% of the vitamin is stored."

"While essential in low concentration for multiple biological functions, vitamin A in higher concentration can be pro-oxidant, mutagenic, teratogenic and cytotoxic, acting as a highly surface-active, membrane-seeking and destabilizing compound. Regarding the mechanism of parturition, it is conjectured that by nine months of gestation the hepatic accumulation of vitamin A (retinol) from the liver is such that mobilization and secretion are impaired to the point where stored vitamin A compounds in the form of retinyl esters and retinoic acid begin to spill or leak into the circulation, resulting in amniotic membrane destabilization and the initiation of parturition."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304002797_A_Role_for_the_Liver_in_Parturition_and_Preterm_Birth

 

[InChristAlone]

I have seen people doing low VitA and low toxin diet on meat and beans and psyllium but meat was fatty. Does that mean fat is not toxin.? I know smith is against high fat but it can work if combined with alot fiber

Yeah it can work if the diet is otherwise low in fat. Some people feel better on more fat. Some worse. The fat of meat will have the most vit A though.

 

[mattmm24]

Fair point, but do we really think that the same nutrients that are vital for growth of children are poisonous and toxic for adults? Perhaps in high amounts they can be bad like anything else but the implication seems to be that all dairy and vitamin a is toxic, how can that be the case when from the very earliest days of life the main sustenance a human gets human milk that is full of these supposedly toxic and poisonous ingredients?

Can a babies liver really be so different to an adult that dairy goes from being a vital nutrient for an infant to one that is a "liver destroyer" for an adult?

Are you saying that the nutrients of calcium and vitamin A are bad for babies too but because they are growing so fast that they can somehow avoid the negatives of these nutrients?

I'm really struggling on this. The best i can see is that some people with other issues can see benefits from removing certain nutrients like vitamin A because they have other issues like a poor thyroid or other toxic chemical buildup, heavy metal poisoning, or they are lacking some other nutrient that makes processing calcium or vitamin A very difficult and may cause more problems.

I can even get behind the idea of a very low vitamin A diet perhaps that is the better way for adults but the way it is being portrayed as some deadly toxin that is slowly killing everybody I just don't see how that can be possible when there are many studies that show babies without sufficient vitamin A are much more likely to die and suffer from a whole range of medical problems.

Impact of supplementing newborn infants with vitamin A on early infant mortality: community based randomised trial in southern India

"Participants 11 619 newborn infants allocated 24 000 IU oral vitamin A or placebo on days 1 and 2 after delivery.

Main outcome measure Primary outcome measure was mortality at age 6 months.

Results Infants in the vitamin A group had a 22% reduction in total mortality (95% confidence interval 4% to 37%) compared with those in the placebo group. Vitamin A had an impact on mortality between two weeks and three months after treatment, with no additional impact after three months.

Conclusion Supplementing newborn infants with vitamin A can significantly reduce early infant mortality."

I have no idea where it is on the forum now. But someone posted that glyphosphate made it so we aren’t able to use vitamin a like we are supposed to be able to. So our livers just build up with it and it causes all sorts of problems. To me, that sounds more reasonable then to say it’s always been a toxin. Considering people have been drinking milk for thousands of years. But if this is the case, then the low vitamin a diet has validity, because you are never going to be able to go glyphosphate free.

 

[Nimo]

Yeah it can work if the diet is otherwise low in fat. Some people feel better on more fat. Some worse. The fat of meat will have the most vit A though.

1kg beef have amount of vitA like 5g butter so meat is really low vitA

 

[pubh12]

Still unclear on why Niacinamide cannot open the same pathways

 

[InChristAlone]

1kg beef have amount of vitA like 5g butter so meat is really low vitA

Someone found studies showing it's not as low vit A as it shows on any website. I'll have to go find it.

 

[mosaic01]

Still unclear on why Niacinamide cannot open the same pathways

I don't know where the "opens up detox pathways" idea comes from. Probably Kelsey or Smith. I can't comment on that, would be interesting to know more about this.

But generally, it is known in Andy Cutler circles (mercury detox) that niacin boosts the phase 2 of liver detoxification, while niacinamide slows down phase 1. This means that niacinamide actually slows down the detoxification as a whole. I guess niacinamide can do positive things unrelated to boosting detox, but the detox blocking effect really makes it a bad idea to use, except in "emergency" cases where the detox needs to be slowed down.

 

[brongfogboy]

Fair point, but do we really think that the same nutrients that are vital for growth of children are poisonous and toxic for adults? Perhaps in high amounts they can be bad like anything else but the implication seems to be that all dairy and vitamin a is toxic, how can that be the case when from the very earliest days of life the main sustenance a human gets human milk that is full of these supposedly toxic and poisonous ingredients?

Can a babies liver really be so different to an adult that dairy goes from being a vital nutrient for an infant to one that is a "liver destroyer" for an adult?

Are you saying that the nutrients of calcium and vitamin A are bad for babies too but because they are growing so fast that they can somehow avoid the negatives of these nutrients?

I'm really struggling on this. The best i can see is that some people with other issues can see benefits from removing certain nutrients like vitamin A because they have other issues like a poor thyroid or other toxic chemical buildup, heavy metal poisoning, or they are lacking some other nutrient that makes processing calcium or vitamin A very difficult and may cause more problems.

I can even get behind the idea of a very low vitamin A diet perhaps that is the better way for adults but the way it is being portrayed as some deadly toxin that is slowly killing everybody I just don't see how that can be possible when there are many studies that show babies without sufficient vitamin A are much more likely to die and suffer from a whole range of medical problems.

Impact of supplementing newborn infants with vitamin A on early infant mortality: community based randomised trial in southern India

"Participants 11 619 newborn infants allocated 24 000 IU oral vitamin A or placebo on days 1 and 2 after delivery.

Main outcome measure Primary outcome measure was mortality at age 6 months.

Results Infants in the vitamin A group had a 22% reduction in total mortality (95% confidence interval 4% to 37%) compared with those in the placebo group. Vitamin A had an impact on mortality between two weeks and three months after treatment, with no additional impact after three months.

Conclusion Supplementing newborn infants with vitamin A can significantly reduce early infant mortality."

The conclusion of this study doesn't really account for how complicated biology can be. If the body holds onto vitamin A as a means of protecting the organism from its toxic effects then the breast milk could be low in vitamin A which would could cause vitamin A deficiency in the newborn whereas supplementing it with vitamin A could be beneficial.

Another way of putting it is : If a newborn is vitamin A deficient then adding vitamin A could be advantageous on a very short term basis.

It could also be that the vitamin A toxicity created by the supplementation created a hormetic effect that allowed those babies to be more resilient which reduced mortality, but that positive effect would only be short term. If vitamin A was continued for prolonged periods of time it could have deleterious effects.

I'm not saying the Vitamin A didn't help, I'm saying the studies conclusion is weak, IMO. I've been saying awhile that these supplements, including vitamin D3 is toxic for the body so I may be a bit bias, however I think the evidence is there to at least be cautious of vitamin A intake.

 

[David PS]

I have no idea where it is on the forum now. But someone posted that glyphosphate made it so we aren’t able to use vitamin a like we are supposed to be able to. So our livers just build up with it and it causes all sorts of problems. To me, that sounds more reasonable then to say it’s always been a toxin. Considering people have been drinking milk for thousands of years. But if this is the case, then the low vitamin a diet has validity, because you are never going to be able to go glyphosphate free.

I am looking for the study. I found this blog

Is Gluten Really the Problem? How Glyphosate Impacts Vitamin A Toxicity | Just Take A Bite

Is gluten really the problem? Nope! Glyphosate impacts Vitamin A Toxicity significantly, causing gluten-related problems.

justtakeabite.com

 

[hierundjetzt]

I am looking for the study. I found this blog

Is Gluten Really the Problem? How Glyphosate Impacts Vitamin A Toxicity | Just Take A Bite

Is gluten really the problem? Nope! Glyphosate impacts Vitamin A Toxicity significantly, causing gluten-related problems.

justtakeabite.com

So, possibly/theoretically the people benefitting from a low vitamin A diet are just those whose systems/bodies are overloaded with glyphosate.

 

[David PS]

So, possibly/theoretically the people benefitting from a low vitamin A diet are just those whose systems/bodies are overloaded with glyphosate.

Yes, that is the suggestion. I do not consider the two strategies to be mutually exclusive. Just do both.

 

[InChristAlone]

Milk is actually not that high in vit A depending on what the cow is eating. But nowadays maybe it is higher because cows are given supplements. I don't think cows goats or sheep would have been regularly eating rapidly growing green grass. They eat hay for a large portion of the yr. During this time their milk would be lower in vit A. I read a bunch of studies even suggesting that hay fed animals are becoming vit A deficient. They clearly get rid of it easier than we do. Or need it in their diet more than we do. And cows would be exposed to far more glyphosate and other herbicides than we are.

Grant has been eating an extremely low A diet and has practically nothing in his serum and hasn't suffered any of the supposed signs of deficiency. A zinc deficiency causes an apparent need for vit A. We don't understand all the interactions and ways our body works.

 

[mosaic01]

I don't think cows goats or sheep would have been regularly eating rapidly growing green grass.

Good point, I have been thinking about this as well. Before we domesticated those animals, their diet probably contained way less carotenes. Living on rapidly growing green grass is pretty artificial. The wild animals also had to deal with a lot of infections and other issues that deplete retinol.

So the entire milking business is something that is not very natural.

Sheep die so quickly to infections, without careful treatment sometimes half of the herd dies in a single year from infected udders. What we do is clearly against nature and it's natural selection. The result of all of this combined, including supplementation, is animals that hyper-concentrate carotenoids as retinol in their bodies.

 

[charlie]

Good point, I have been thinking about this as well. Before we domesticated those animals, their diet probably contained way less carotenes. Living on rapidly growing green grass is pretty artificial. The wild animals also had to deal with a lot of infections and other issues that deplete retinol.

So the entire milking business is something that is not very natural.

Sheep die so quickly to infections, without careful treatment sometimes half of the herd dies in a single year from infected udders. What we do is clearly against nature and it's natural selection. The result of all of this combined, including supplementation, is animals that hyper-concentrate carotenoids as retinol in their bodies.

This might be the explanation why milk was good back in the day, but today its a different story. Also, I think it was Grant that says pasteurization causes a more toxic form of "vitamin A" to be made.