Quote from Dr. Garrett Smith on January 18, 2019, 11:36 am

See Part 2 here.

See Part 3 here.

This is very simple.  If "Vitamin A deficiency" is real, and it is a "vital" and "essential" nutrient...shouldn't it be true that if there were large populations that were truly "Vitamin A deficient", that they should be showing very obvious and very serious health problems?  That is how it works when it is legitimate, folks!  So let's blow that out of the water first, shall we?

Vitamin A deficiency in Latin America and the Caribbean: an overview.

Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) has been known to exist in Latin America and the Caribbean since the mid-1960s; however, except for pioneering work by the Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panama/Pan American Health Organization on sugar fortification in Central America, there was little interest in controlling it because of the low frequency of clinical findings.
[...]
In most countries of the Region, however, VAD was not considered a problem of public health significance because ocular lesions leading to permanent blindness were not frequently observed despite prevalences of low serum retinol hovering near the cutoff of 15% then recommended by WHO.
[...]
On the other hand, ocular signs attributable to clinical VAD were extremely rare in the 1980s and they have not been assessed more recently.

We Need Studies of the Mortality Effect of Vitamin A Supplementation, Not Surveys of Vitamin A Deficiency

Second, if VAS [Vitamin A Supplements] worked by preventing VAD [Vitamin A Deficiency], then one would expect a clear linear association between the degree of underlying VAD and the effect of VAS: the higher the prevalence of VAD in a community, the larger the effect of VAS. However, this is not the case. Already, the first meta-analysis of the initial eight studies of the mortality effect of VAS noted that there was no association between the effect of VAS on mortality and the degree of underlying VAD at the population level [2]. As presented in a recent review [7], this conclusion is substantiated when more recent studies are included (Figure 1).
[...]
If VAS is given to reduce mortality, and does not work by preventing VAD, then making the prevalence of VAD determine where to implement or scale back VAS does not make sense.
[...]
New evidence is now indicating that VAS may no longer be a golden bullet against mortality. The two most recent VAS trials found no evidence for a beneficial effect of VAS, despite being conducted in areas with a high prevalence of VAD [10,11]. The results of these new trials are highly different from the results of previous trials, and are compatible with the interpretation that the overall mortality effect of VAS has ceased to be beneficial [11]. Furthermore, several studies suggest that the mortality effect of VAS, being an immunomodulator, is dependent on a number of factors, which also influence the immune system, such as the most recent vaccines given, sex of the child, and season [7].

This should be all the proof anyone needs to call BS on the concept of Poison/"Vitamin A" being essential or vital to life/health in any way.  I'll give more proof in the rest of this series though, because that's the kind of person I am.

If the testing of serum retinol (aka Vitamin A) was legitimately showing deficiency levels that caused real problems, there would NOT be any "low frequency of clinical findings" and "no evidence for a beneficial effect".

The symptom of supposed "VAD" (Vitamin A Deficiency) that is held most dear is that it negatively affects the eyes.  Then how are the eye (ocular) symptoms supposedly intimately associated with outright clinically blood-tested low serum retinol "extremely rare"?

If you want to read the paper thoroughly, you'll see that fortifying sugar with Poison/"Vitamin A" helped to raise serum retinol levels...AND you will notice a distinct LACK of them actually showing any BENEFIT to people's health status from doing so.