Fascinating Research on Vitamin A From 1925
Vitamin A deficiency resulted in serious health issues such as gland atrophy, growth arrest, emaciation, and ultimately death.
**article by Sally Fallon Morell
Results of LOW VITAMIN A on rats
-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
Low Toxin Studies Fascinating Research on Vitamin A From 1925
- Thread starter Kimster
- Start date
**article by Sally Fallon Morell
Results of LOW VITAMIN A on rats
The article is actually from 2023, but Dr. Mercola has decided to bring it to the attention of his readers: Fascinating Research on Vitamin A... from 1925 - Nourishing Traditions
I have the feeling that Morell has only looked into the Wolbach and Howe study after seeing the study mentioned by Genereux, and wrote the article to "counter" Genereux without mentioning his name or any of his conclusions.
Genereux is so far ahead of people like Morell. He has taken the 1925 Wolbach and Howe study apart in his books and it seems Morell does not care to look into it at all.
Genereux writing about Wolbach and Howe:
"If that long list of disease and tissue destruction did not cause them to pause and deeply, and very seriously question their deficiency concept, then the speed at which it happened surely should have. Most of the animals in their experiments had become extremely sick by the 8th week of being on a specially designed deficiency diet. By the 8 th week, many of the animals were too weak, sick and diseased even to feed themselves. Bizarrely, the researchers resorted to force-feeding the animals for the remaining two weeks of their experiments. The scene in these laboratories must have been something like mini horror torture chambers. Nonetheless, by the 10th week, nearly all the animals were either dead or very close to dying. That’s correct, in a mere 8 to 10 weeks on the deficiency diet all the animals were very seriously diseased or dead. Needing to force food down a rat’s throat should have been another major clue that there was something drastically wrong with it.
...
Once again, seeing all this disease and destruction in response to a mere deficiency is so completely illogical. What any reasonable, and thinking, person would expect to see in response to a mere deficiency is a slow wasting and general tissue atrophy. After all, this is the response that’s always been witnessed in nature, and witnessed for over thousands of years too, due to prolonged and even complete starvation. Clearly then, there was something else drastically wrong with the artificial deficiency diet used in these lab experiments."
"Other “deficiency” diets fail to produce disease – red flag!
In these other experiments, their animals did not succumb to the so called deficiency conditions at all. There are reports from Emmett, A. D., and Allen, F. P., in the Journal of Biol. Chem., 1920, and that of Stephenson, M., and Clark, A. B., in Biochem. Journal., 1920 where their animals showed no signs of vitamin-A deficiency. These reports should have raised a major red flag. But, somehow, they did not. They were simply dismissed as being anomalies and disregarded. Now, if you recall from our golden rules regarding experiments, to any legitimate scientists this should have proven the vitamin-A deficiency theory as very likely being wrong. They now had other diet regiments still 100% completely deplete of vitamin-A, which were not producing the deficiency disease conditions."
@Dr. Mercola, the information is there.
I have the feeling that Morell has only looked into the Wolbach and Howe study after seeing the study mentioned by Genereux, and wrote the article to "counter" Genereux without mentioning his name or any of his conclusions.
Genereux is so far ahead of people like Morell. He has taken the 1925 Wolbach and Howe study apart in his books and it seems Morell does not care to look into it at all.
Genereux writing about Wolbach and Howe:
"If that long list of disease and tissue destruction did not cause them to pause and deeply, and very seriously question their deficiency concept, then the speed at which it happened surely should have. Most of the animals in their experiments had become extremely sick by the 8th week of being on a specially designed deficiency diet. By the 8 th week, many of the animals were too weak, sick and diseased even to feed themselves. Bizarrely, the researchers resorted to force-feeding the animals for the remaining two weeks of their experiments. The scene in these laboratories must have been something like mini horror torture chambers. Nonetheless, by the 10th week, nearly all the animals were either dead or very close to dying. That’s correct, in a mere 8 to 10 weeks on the deficiency diet all the animals were very seriously diseased or dead. Needing to force food down a rat’s throat should have been another major clue that there was something drastically wrong with it.
...
Once again, seeing all this disease and destruction in response to a mere deficiency is so completely illogical. What any reasonable, and thinking, person would expect to see in response to a mere deficiency is a slow wasting and general tissue atrophy. After all, this is the response that’s always been witnessed in nature, and witnessed for over thousands of years too, due to prolonged and even complete starvation. Clearly then, there was something else drastically wrong with the artificial deficiency diet used in these lab experiments."
"Other “deficiency” diets fail to produce disease – red flag!
In these other experiments, their animals did not succumb to the so called deficiency conditions at all. There are reports from Emmett, A. D., and Allen, F. P., in the Journal of Biol. Chem., 1920, and that of Stephenson, M., and Clark, A. B., in Biochem. Journal., 1920 where their animals showed no signs of vitamin-A deficiency. These reports should have raised a major red flag. But, somehow, they did not. They were simply dismissed as being anomalies and disregarded. Now, if you recall from our golden rules regarding experiments, to any legitimate scientists this should have proven the vitamin-A deficiency theory as very likely being wrong. They now had other diet regiments still 100% completely deplete of vitamin-A, which were not producing the deficiency disease conditions."
@Dr. Mercola, the information is there.
Last edited:
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
