You mean the same journals that Dr. Blaylock cited? I'm fully aware of what goes on in Science considering I actually am a scientist. No study on its own should be cited as proof of anything. It is only when multiple studies from independent groups repeatedly show similar results that we can begin to consider a hypothesis valid.

Vitamin A is actually much more than 3 molecules. Generally, vitamin A exists in 3 states of oxidation, as an alcohol, an aldehyde, or as a carboxylic acid. However, within those three categories, there are many different isomers of the vitamin A molecule, some of which are more toxic than others. Retinol is actually less harmful than the carboxylic acid forms which are the most reactive and the most likely to cause damage. When someone consumes more retinol than their body can handle, they overproduce retinoic acid (the carboxylic acid form) which causes a large amount of damage to cells through inappropriate redox chemistry and inappropriate activation of the RAR/RXR receptors in the cell nuclei. Additionally, it weakly activates the vitamin D receptors effectively blocking vitamin D's action on genetic expression. This occurs even with smaller amounts of retinoic acid.

However, it should have been tacit in my responses that when I typed "Vitamin A" I meant retinol or retinyl palmitate, the form found in most foods and supplements. Your focus on this aspect of my argument is pedantic and does not contribute to the discussion.

Your article supports that position, yes. However, that was never my point. My point is that the retinol molecule can only act as an electron sink when it is chaperoned properly by retinol-binding protein. There is emerging evidence that many people do not produce enough of this protein, particularly people with neurodegenerative disorders. People who do not produce enough retinol-binding protein develop high levels of free retinol in the blood and free retinol is the opposite of an electron sink, it is an electron donor and will split into toxic radical byproducts in much the same way that polyunsaturated fats do when they are peroxidized.

Another example of this is vitamin C. Vitamin C is both an antioxidant and a pro-oxidant, depending upon the context.

Another aspect of this is that it has been demonstrated in the literature that when someone ingests more retinol than their body can handle (again, this varies with the person), the extra retinol actually suppresses the liver's ability to produce retinol-binding protein. This means that retinol becomes exponentially more toxic, the more you take because, eventually, the liver is unable to produce any retinol-binding protein, leading to mostly free retinol in the blood. It does not take inordinate amounts of retinol to accomplish this. Simply consuming a few hundred IU more per day for decades can accomplish this because the damage is cumulative.

Claiming your knowledge is superior doesn't make it so. You can feel that way if you wish, but it is merely a delusion.

I never claimed that you claimed mothers were injected with vitamin A. I made the claim that they were in support of my hypothesis that there is a widespread, chronic retinol toxicity among western societies. You clearly misconstrued this.

Well, my genius mind must at least be more intelligent than yours considering you still have failed to acknowledge the fact that I did not take this thread off topic. I will reiterate that somebody else took it off topic by making a dangerous suggestion to ingest large amounts of retinol. I posted a reply to their off-topic post putting out a word of caution to anyone who reads that advice not to follow it.

The reason I continue to respond is that I do not allow people to bully me as you have attempted to.

You are the schoolyard bully. I am standing up to you and I will not back down.