It was nice of the World Health Organization, who fully advocates Poison/"Vitamin A" fortification of foods everywhere, to present this reference trail for me to follow. Their summary is really all one needs to show that fortification of Poison/"Vitamin A" of foods is poisoning humanity everywhere it is used. I'll go into the reference after the WHO's summary.
Biomarkers of vitamin A status: what do they mean? (attached PDF below)
Although isotope dilution testing is usually too expensive to consider as a means to evaluate a programme, a sugar-fortification programme was evaluated in a small group of Nicaraguan children (52). The baseline mean liver retinol concentration was 0.57 μmol/g liver, well above what is currently considered deficient (0.07 μmol/g liver). All the children had serum retinol concentrations between 0.74 and 1.31 μmol/L. One year after sugar fortification was implemented, liver reserve concentrations increased to an average of 1.2 μmol/g liver. In 9 of 21 children, liver vitamin A concentrations were calculated to be >1.05 μmol/g liver after fortification, which was defined as toxic in 1990 (53). Because many foods are now being considered for fortification, this sensitive methodology may have to be used, as no other method except liver biopsy is able to diagnose hypervitaminosis A.
Let's go through this.
- NONE of these children were deficient by serum retinol measurement before the study began. NONE of them.
- After consuming the Poison/"Vitamin A"-laced sugar for one year, fully 43% of the children had TOXIC liver levels of Poison/"Vitamin A".
- There was no deficiency to treat, according to their own standards. When they treated this non-deficiency, they made nearly half the kids toxic WITHIN ONE YEAR, according to their own standards.
- How many years have Americans been consuming fortified dairy AND fortified grains? A lot more than one year!!! There is NO deficiency to treat!
Note that they were fortifying SUGAR in NICARAGUA. I did a little bit of searching and found this interesting correlation between EARLY DEATHS in SUGAR CANE WORKERS in NICARAGUA:
The Island Of Widows
In Nicaragua, the average lifespan of men who harvest sugarcane is 49 years. At the root of these early deaths is an epidemic known as Chronic Kidney Disease of undetermined causes (CKDu). In the town of Chichigalpa, often called the “Island of Widows,” 1-in-3 men, mostly cane workers, have end-stage renal failure from this fatal occupational disease that is both a public health crisis and a social injustice. In Central America alone, over 20,000 sugarcane workers have died from CKDu in the past ten years.
Research on the subject of CKDu indicates that repeated dehydration, severe heat, and environmental toxins might play a huge part in the rising death toll among sugarcane workers. These clues need further investigation and increased media coverage to find solutions to this critical problem that exists in Nicaragua, elsewhere in Central America, and globally. From southern Mexico to Ecuador, Sri Lanka, India and other tropical/subtropical countries, battling CKDu is of global concern.
How does this fit with the Unified Theory of Modern Chronic Disease?
Chronic Kidney Disease in Nicaraguan Sugarcane Workers: A Historical, Medical, Environmental Analysis and Ethical Analysis
Over the past two decades, roughly 20,000 people in Central America have died from chronic kidney disease of unknown origins (CKDu).[1] CKDu is growing into an unsolvable epidemic due to the mysterious cause of the disease and the little treatment available in the underdeveloped region. CKDu primarily affects sugarcane workers in Nicaragua and El Salvador, but it has also appeared in the rice paddy fields of Sri Lanka. Researchers from Sri Lanka, Boston University, and University of Colorado have proposed causes for the disease such as the pesticide glyphosate, occupational hazards like heat and dehydration, and sugar consumption, respectively; however disagreements still persist.
Here's how it all works. Glyphosate is sprayed on Nicaraguan sugar cane (along with other synthetic poisonous agrochemicals). Glyphosate inhibits the normal breakdown of Poison/"Vitamin A", which accelerates/aggravates the development of hypervitaminosis A. Sugar cane in Nicaragua is fortified with Poison/"Vitamin A". Chronic Kidney Disease is thoroughly linked in the research to Poison/"Vitamin A" toxicity.
Here is the original paper about fortifying Nicaraguan sugar referenced above in the WHO paper:
Use of the deuterated-retinol-dilution technique to monitor the vitamin A status of Nicaraguan schoolchildren 1 y after initiation of the Nicaraguan national program of sugar fortification with vitamin A 1–3
After reading what the WHO paper said about this study's results above, what did the authors say to cover-up the poisoning of the children in the abstract of this paper?
Conclusion: The vitamin A status of Nicaraguan schoolchildren improved during the year after the initial distribution of vitamin A–fortified sugar in Nicaragua.
Again, none of them were deficient to begin with. By the end, nearly half of them were TOXIC. Is this "improvement"?
We report here our findings from the monitoring of vitamin A status with the use of the DRD technique in Nicaraguan schoolchildren at baseline and 1 y after the start of the availability of vitamin A–fortified sugar in their local markets.
They are not requiring the study participants to eat any certain amount of this laced sugar, it has simply been forced into what they normally eat.
In the current study, the Nicaraguan children had relatively adequate body reserves of vitamin A, even at baseline. No child had a liver vitamin A concentration that was <0.07 micromol/g liver, the cutoff for inadequacy of liver vitamin A reserves (25, 28, 29).
Even before the sugar was laced, the children's liver supplies of Poison/"Vitamin A" were adequate by their standards.
The findings of this study suggest a strong effect of the Nicaraguan national program of fortifying domestic sugar with vitamin A on the vitamin A status of school-aged children in Nicaragua. During the inaugural year of the program, total-body and liver vitamin A reserves more than doubled, and plasma retinol concentrations increased 1.2-fold. Because of the magnitude of the change in vitamin A status, the conclusion that this was attributable to the national fortification program seems reasonable, despite the lack of any control group because of the impossibility of finding an unexposed cohort for simultaneous comparison.
"Strong" medicines tend to have "strong" side effects.
That last sentence means that no one had a chance to escape this poisoning if they ate any sugar sold in Nicaragua. A lack of a control group doesn't sound very scientific, does it? The whole population is now the experiment.
After 1 y of exposure to vitamin A–fortified sugar, the estimated mean (0.93 mmol) or median (0.72 mmol) total-body vitamin A stores in the Nicaraguan study participants approached the value reported for the US child.
American children's general health status is not something to strive for, in my opinion. See infographic.
One child had a high baseline liver vitamin A concentration of 1.35 micromol/g (outlier, Figure 1), which rose 2.4-fold to 3.24 micromol/g after 1 y; the corresponding plasma retinol values were unremarkable, ie, 1.20 and 1.68 micromol/L, respectively. According to Olson (28), the normal physiologic range of vitamin A stores is 0.07–1.05 micromol/g liver.
This kid was toxic before he started, and he's much more toxic after.
After 1 y, 9 of the 21 study participants had liver vitamin A stores that were >1.05 mol/g.
~43% of them were now toxic.
The upper safe limit of hepatic vitamin A stores is not known, but should be carefully assessed in all vulnerable groups, such as children and pregnant and lactating women, to ascertain that continued increased intakes of vitamin A pose no risk of adverse health effects.
REALLY? It is not known if excess Vitamin A poses adverse health effects??? Here, let me do a Pubmed search on "hypervitaminosis A" for you guys:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22hypervitaminosis%20A%22%5BTitle%5D
As of the writing of this article, the above search for "hypervitaminosis A" specifically in the title of the papers came up with 481 results. Maybe there will be more evidence of these authors' incompetence, and it doesn't take long to find it.
A clear indicator of vitamin A toxicity is a markedly elevated concentration of circulating vitamin A in the form of retinyl esters (43); none of the participants in this study had detectable plasma retinyl ester concentrations.
What that bolded part means is that they either did their analysis of retinyl esters WRONG by accident or on purpose. The sugar was fortified with retinyl acetate, which is a retinyl ESTER. They're feeding the kids a retinyl ester, yet there were NO retinyl esters in the blood of ANY of these kids? Don't you think they should have circled back around and check on their analysis technique maybe? More on the lack of competence below.
The target concentration of vitamin A in sugar was 10–15 microg retinol activity equivalents (RAE)/g [1 microg retinol = 1 RAE (4)]. However, a large variation in vitamin A concentrations was found in batches of the sugar samples analyzed. In one study, the analyses of sugar samples taken from 131–150 households in 5 regions in Nicaragua, conducted 5 times between March 2000 and March 2001, gave mean values of 5.5, 4.1, 4.0, 4.7, and 5.0 microg RAE/g; individual values ranged from 0 to 28.4 microg RAE/g sugar (E Boy,ODary, unpublished observations, 2003). Another set of assays from another laboratory found a mean value of 16.4 microg RAE/g sugar, with values ranging from 2.5 to 61.1 microg RAE/g (44) in sugar from among the same sites. The apparent discrepancy in the results of these 2 experiences could possibly reflect differences in laboratory methods used in the analysis or true differences associated with quality-control measures during the fortification process.
Better hope you don't get the sugar that has 2-4 TIMES as much Poison/"Vitamin A" as their target concentration! Again, is this by accident, or on purpose?
In conclusion, a stable-isotope-dilution procedure was used to monitor changes in vitamin A status in a cohort of schoolchildren during the year after the initiation of the Nicaraguan national program of sugar fortification with vitamin A. Median total-body vitamin A increased 2.2-fold (112.0%), and plasma retinol increased 1.2-fold (18.6%), which suggested that the program was successful in achieving its goal of improving the vitamin A status of Nicaraguan children residing in a low-income community. However, because everyone in Nicaragua is exposed to the sugar-fortification program, it would be prudent to monitor the vitamin A status of children and pregnant and lactating women, not only from low-income communities but also from higher-income communities, to assess whether the continued increased intakes of vitamin A pose any risk of adverse health effects.
Aren't we supposed to assess the toxicity FIRST? They are poisoning FIRST, and assessing the damage LATER!
It was nice of the World Health Organization, who fully advocates Poison/"Vitamin A" fortification of foods everywhere, to present this reference trail for me to follow. Their summary is really all one needs to show that fortification of Poison/"Vitamin A" of foods is poisoning humanity everywhere it is used. I'll go into the reference after the WHO's summary.
Biomarkers of vitamin A status: what do they mean? (attached PDF below)
Although isotope dilution testing is usually too expensive to consider as a means to evaluate a programme, a sugar-fortification programme was evaluated in a small group of Nicaraguan children (52). The baseline mean liver retinol concentration was 0.57 μmol/g liver, well above what is currently considered deficient (0.07 μmol/g liver). All the children had serum retinol concentrations between 0.74 and 1.31 μmol/L. One year after sugar fortification was implemented, liver reserve concentrations increased to an average of 1.2 μmol/g liver. In 9 of 21 children, liver vitamin A concentrations were calculated to be >1.05 μmol/g liver after fortification, which was defined as toxic in 1990 (53). Because many foods are now being considered for fortification, this sensitive methodology may have to be used, as no other method except liver biopsy is able to diagnose hypervitaminosis A.
Let's go through this.
- NONE of these children were deficient by serum retinol measurement before the study began. NONE of them.
- After consuming the Poison/"Vitamin A"-laced sugar for one year, fully 43% of the children had TOXIC liver levels of Poison/"Vitamin A".
- There was no deficiency to treat, according to their own standards. When they treated this non-deficiency, they made nearly half the kids toxic WITHIN ONE YEAR, according to their own standards.
- How many years have Americans been consuming fortified dairy AND fortified grains? A lot more than one year!!! There is NO deficiency to treat!
Note that they were fortifying SUGAR in NICARAGUA. I did a little bit of searching and found this interesting correlation between EARLY DEATHS in SUGAR CANE WORKERS in NICARAGUA:
The Island Of Widows
In Nicaragua, the average lifespan of men who harvest sugarcane is 49 years. At the root of these early deaths is an epidemic known as Chronic Kidney Disease of undetermined causes (CKDu). In the town of Chichigalpa, often called the “Island of Widows,” 1-in-3 men, mostly cane workers, have end-stage renal failure from this fatal occupational disease that is both a public health crisis and a social injustice. In Central America alone, over 20,000 sugarcane workers have died from CKDu in the past ten years.
Research on the subject of CKDu indicates that repeated dehydration, severe heat, and environmental toxins might play a huge part in the rising death toll among sugarcane workers. These clues need further investigation and increased media coverage to find solutions to this critical problem that exists in Nicaragua, elsewhere in Central America, and globally. From southern Mexico to Ecuador, Sri Lanka, India and other tropical/subtropical countries, battling CKDu is of global concern.
How does this fit with the Unified Theory of Modern Chronic Disease?
Chronic Kidney Disease in Nicaraguan Sugarcane Workers: A Historical, Medical, Environmental Analysis and Ethical Analysis
Over the past two decades, roughly 20,000 people in Central America have died from chronic kidney disease of unknown origins (CKDu).[1] CKDu is growing into an unsolvable epidemic due to the mysterious cause of the disease and the little treatment available in the underdeveloped region. CKDu primarily affects sugarcane workers in Nicaragua and El Salvador, but it has also appeared in the rice paddy fields of Sri Lanka. Researchers from Sri Lanka, Boston University, and University of Colorado have proposed causes for the disease such as the pesticide glyphosate, occupational hazards like heat and dehydration, and sugar consumption, respectively; however disagreements still persist.
Here's how it all works. Glyphosate is sprayed on Nicaraguan sugar cane (along with other synthetic poisonous agrochemicals). Glyphosate inhibits the normal breakdown of Poison/"Vitamin A", which accelerates/aggravates the development of hypervitaminosis A. Sugar cane in Nicaragua is fortified with Poison/"Vitamin A". Chronic Kidney Disease is thoroughly linked in the research to Poison/"Vitamin A" toxicity.
Here is the original paper about fortifying Nicaraguan sugar referenced above in the WHO paper:
Use of the deuterated-retinol-dilution technique to monitor the vitamin A status of Nicaraguan schoolchildren 1 y after initiation of the Nicaraguan national program of sugar fortification with vitamin A 1–3
After reading what the WHO paper said about this study's results above, what did the authors say to cover-up the poisoning of the children in the abstract of this paper?
Conclusion: The vitamin A status of Nicaraguan schoolchildren improved during the year after the initial distribution of vitamin A–fortified sugar in Nicaragua.
Again, none of them were deficient to begin with. By the end, nearly half of them were TOXIC. Is this "improvement"?
We report here our findings from the monitoring of vitamin A status with the use of the DRD technique in Nicaraguan schoolchildren at baseline and 1 y after the start of the availability of vitamin A–fortified sugar in their local markets.
They are not requiring the study participants to eat any certain amount of this laced sugar, it has simply been forced into what they normally eat.
In the current study, the Nicaraguan children had relatively adequate body reserves of vitamin A, even at baseline. No child had a liver vitamin A concentration that was <0.07 micromol/g liver, the cutoff for inadequacy of liver vitamin A reserves (25, 28, 29).
Even before the sugar was laced, the children's liver supplies of Poison/"Vitamin A" were adequate by their standards.
The findings of this study suggest a strong effect of the Nicaraguan national program of fortifying domestic sugar with vitamin A on the vitamin A status of school-aged children in Nicaragua. During the inaugural year of the program, total-body and liver vitamin A reserves more than doubled, and plasma retinol concentrations increased 1.2-fold. Because of the magnitude of the change in vitamin A status, the conclusion that this was attributable to the national fortification program seems reasonable, despite the lack of any control group because of the impossibility of finding an unexposed cohort for simultaneous comparison.
"Strong" medicines tend to have "strong" side effects.
That last sentence means that no one had a chance to escape this poisoning if they ate any sugar sold in Nicaragua. A lack of a control group doesn't sound very scientific, does it? The whole population is now the experiment.
After 1 y of exposure to vitamin A–fortified sugar, the estimated mean (0.93 mmol) or median (0.72 mmol) total-body vitamin A stores in the Nicaraguan study participants approached the value reported for the US child.
American children's general health status is not something to strive for, in my opinion. See infographic.
One child had a high baseline liver vitamin A concentration of 1.35 micromol/g (outlier, Figure 1), which rose 2.4-fold to 3.24 micromol/g after 1 y; the corresponding plasma retinol values were unremarkable, ie, 1.20 and 1.68 micromol/L, respectively. According to Olson (28), the normal physiologic range of vitamin A stores is 0.07–1.05 micromol/g liver.
This kid was toxic before he started, and he's much more toxic after.
After 1 y, 9 of the 21 study participants had liver vitamin A stores that were >1.05 mol/g.
~43% of them were now toxic.
The upper safe limit of hepatic vitamin A stores is not known, but should be carefully assessed in all vulnerable groups, such as children and pregnant and lactating women, to ascertain that continued increased intakes of vitamin A pose no risk of adverse health effects.
REALLY? It is not known if excess Vitamin A poses adverse health effects??? Here, let me do a Pubmed search on "hypervitaminosis A" for you guys:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22hypervitaminosis%20A%22%5BTitle%5D
As of the writing of this article, the above search for "hypervitaminosis A" specifically in the title of the papers came up with 481 results. Maybe there will be more evidence of these authors' incompetence, and it doesn't take long to find it.
A clear indicator of vitamin A toxicity is a markedly elevated concentration of circulating vitamin A in the form of retinyl esters (43); none of the participants in this study had detectable plasma retinyl ester concentrations.
What that bolded part means is that they either did their analysis of retinyl esters WRONG by accident or on purpose. The sugar was fortified with retinyl acetate, which is a retinyl ESTER. They're feeding the kids a retinyl ester, yet there were NO retinyl esters in the blood of ANY of these kids? Don't you think they should have circled back around and check on their analysis technique maybe? More on the lack of competence below.
The target concentration of vitamin A in sugar was 10–15 microg retinol activity equivalents (RAE)/g [1 microg retinol = 1 RAE (4)]. However, a large variation in vitamin A concentrations was found in batches of the sugar samples analyzed. In one study, the analyses of sugar samples taken from 131–150 households in 5 regions in Nicaragua, conducted 5 times between March 2000 and March 2001, gave mean values of 5.5, 4.1, 4.0, 4.7, and 5.0 microg RAE/g; individual values ranged from 0 to 28.4 microg RAE/g sugar (E Boy,ODary, unpublished observations, 2003). Another set of assays from another laboratory found a mean value of 16.4 microg RAE/g sugar, with values ranging from 2.5 to 61.1 microg RAE/g (44) in sugar from among the same sites. The apparent discrepancy in the results of these 2 experiences could possibly reflect differences in laboratory methods used in the analysis or true differences associated with quality-control measures during the fortification process.
Better hope you don't get the sugar that has 2-4 TIMES as much Poison/"Vitamin A" as their target concentration! Again, is this by accident, or on purpose?
In conclusion, a stable-isotope-dilution procedure was used to monitor changes in vitamin A status in a cohort of schoolchildren during the year after the initiation of the Nicaraguan national program of sugar fortification with vitamin A. Median total-body vitamin A increased 2.2-fold (112.0%), and plasma retinol increased 1.2-fold (18.6%), which suggested that the program was successful in achieving its goal of improving the vitamin A status of Nicaraguan children residing in a low-income community. However, because everyone in Nicaragua is exposed to the sugar-fortification program, it would be prudent to monitor the vitamin A status of children and pregnant and lactating women, not only from low-income communities but also from higher-income communities, to assess whether the continued increased intakes of vitamin A pose any risk of adverse health effects.
Aren't we supposed to assess the toxicity FIRST? They are poisoning FIRST, and assessing the damage LATER!
Uploaded files:- You need to login to have access to uploads.
