AIDS, new and improved!

“AIDS 2.0” has its own Wikipedia page. It refers to an epidemic of HIV-analogous AIDS in China, where of course the people affected do not test HIV+. If this media frenzy is to be believed, we here have proof, at the very least, that HIV is not an exclusive cause of AIDS – if we happened to grant that HIV exists and is dangerous.

However, it’s perhaps much better to apply Occam’s razor and state that AIDS has always been a multi-factorial disease; no need to give AIDS a software revision extension. If we believe the problem in China is environmental, why cannot we believe that the problem in Africa is too, fuelled by poverty? The big clue being that there’s no gender disparity in the disease compared to the western world.

Vitamin D expert Dr. William B. Grant kindly read the HIV/AIDS chapter in Prescribing Sunshine…  and concluded “What I wonder is whether it is possible to advance the vitamin D story without also claiming that there is not an HIV virus?”  While I deeply respect his viewpoint, why aren’t we allowed to question the existence and pathogenicity of HIV at the same time?

You would think that HIV-negativity is a sufficient reason to define a 2.0 AIDS (even if temporarily), but you have to remember that HIV positivity is not an exclusive requirement under AIDS 1.0. A ‘1.1. service pack’ suggests that you can just require a low CD4 count to count as an AIDS patient.


Henry Bauer, author of Dogmatism in Science and Medicine, and The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, has mentioned Prescribing Sunshine… in his latest blog post.

HIV/AIDS Skepticism

It is simply no longer possible to believe
much of the clinical research that is published,
or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians
or authoritative medical guidelines.
I take no pleasure in this conclusion,
which I reached slowly and reluctantly
 over my two decades as an editor
of   The New England Journal of Medicine
— Marcia Angell, “Drug companies and doctors: a story of corruption,”
New York Review of Books, 56 #1, 15 January

A corollary of Angell’s conclusion is that some part of contemporary medical practice, promoted or endorsed by mainstream institutions, is based on misleading information and thereby either medically harmful, or just medically useless but wasteful of time and money, or occasionally medically helpful but only by coincidental chance.
Proponents and groupies of mainstream medicine like to use the phrase “evidence-based medicine” as though it described contemporary practices. It doesn’t, far from it.

View original post 1,093 more words

Why aren’t dermatologists on to these guys?

Bugs that sunbathe do so to stay healthy and fight off germs, according to scientists.

“If western boxelder bugs can convert the suns’ solar energy to fuel chemical work without the aid of microbial symbionts this would be a spectacular accomplishment in the animal kingdom,” [Schwarz] told BBC Nature.

Read the full article here.

Causes or doesn’t cause heart disease, that is the question

Interesting article in The Telegraph today, here’s a couple of snippets.

“Essentially cholesterol is there to help repair damage,” says Dr Malcolm Kendrick, a Scottish GP and author of The Great Cholesterol Con. “It’s a bit like blaming firemen for causing fires, because they are there when fires break out.”

I would agree with that. I would even add that it’s there to prevent damage.

“Apparent contradictions in the evidence are not what they seem,” says Prof Baigent, a Medical Research Council scientist based at Oxford University. “For example, when people get sick, their livers make less cholesterol, so in some older people low cholesterol is a sign of illness that may increase their risk of death. Yet we also know that lowering cholesterol prevents heart disease in older people. Both observations are entirely consistent with cholesterol being a cause of heart disease.”

Half-correct. Sick people can make less cholesterol and this I’m certain will make them sicker. However, cholesterol-lowering drugs do not only lower cholesterol, so the idea that the cholesterol hypothesis is untouchable is frankly rubbish. Why? Read my book. I dare you to prove me wrong.

HIV/AIDS rising in black American women

2 days ago Forbes reported that HIV/AIDS Rates Rocket for Black U.S. Women. One paragraph of note is:

“…the rate of new HIV infections among black women was 15 times that of white women and over three times the rate among Hispanic/Latina women.”

If you believe in the classic AIDS hypothesis you essentially acknowledge that – ignoring possible blood transfusions –  black women are commonly highly promiscuous and perhaps share dirty needles when using drugs more often than women lighter than them in a colour gradient. Essentially, you would be racist. You think morality increases with paleness.

If, however, you believe that there is another reason for the racial disparity; say, for instance, that environmental factors play a factor in susceptibility to illness, you may be attracted by an explanation propounded in my radical book Prescribing Sunshine… Not only that, it seems that you’re willing to brush aside sweeping generalisations of racial behaviour.

Precribing Sunshine eBook on sale now! + Watch ‘Positively False’

After 2 years and 7 months, Prescribing Sunshine: Why vitamin D should be flying off shelves is finally premièring, in eBook form, on the Amazon Kindle, Kobo and as a multi-format download. Other digital editions will appear shortly. Please sign up to the mailing list for announcements of these. A paperback should be available before year end.

The book is a concise read featuring over 300 references.

Why should you buy the book? While there are at least a dozen titles on the subject, virtually none of them are written by non-American authors, fewer still are written from the perspective of a patient; and – crucially – none of them dare to probe the probe deeper implications of vitamin D science. There is also no repetition here. It might be slim but it hammers the central message in hard.

The book features exclusive interviews with vitamin D experts Oliver Gillie, Dr. David Grimes (author of Vitamin D & Cholesterol: The importance of the sun), Prof. Bruce Hollis (one of the most respected scientists in the field of vitamin D), and award-winning medical tele-journalist Joan Shenton.

Speaking of Joan Shenton, late last year she premièred her first full-length film, Positively False: Birth of a Heresy, which collates over a quarter of a century of personal archive footage demonstrating why HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS; at the very least not exclusively. The film can now be rented online or purchased for a reasonable fee via this link.

You might be wondering what HIV scepticism (or the misnomer ‘AIDS denialism’) has to do with vitamin D deficiency. Well, there is a worthy connection between both which is convincingly detailed in Prescribing Sunshine... The book is currently available for a miniscule £1.99, $2.99 or €2.68, so if you’ve got a few more dollars, euros or pounds to spare, you might want to check out this 64min documentary to fully understand why HIV scepticism is a legitimate scientific concern beyond the realm of quackery. There doesn’t appear to be much disagreement as to vitamin D being useful to HIV/AIDS patients, the dispute lies in the actual way in which it can be useful.

Now that the book has debuted, this long-inactive blog will now become more busy as a promotional tool and as a means of addressing any information in the book that may become obsolete over the years.

I look forward to posting here and hope that via the comments I can have interesting – friendly or antagonistic – discussions with anyone interested in the subject and related issues.

Also, please: If you like Prescribing Sunshine… and Positively False… please spread the word about them as they are both independent releases that require your support.

Proven to lower cholesterol, and what?

The Digital Journal released an article a few days ago with the headline Cholesterol-lowering products cause heart diseaseThe products in question are foods that contain plant sterols; you can find these in certain yoghurt drinks and in margarine.

The problem, it seems, is that these products aren’t good for people with low or normal cholesterol as they can actually lead to heart problems. Now, you would agree that cholesterol-lowering for people who don’t need it must be bad, so why then do some health professionals think that statins should be handed out even more freely? If they are universally effective, then they must do something else sterols don’t.

Furthermore, products such as margarine are so shockingly devoid of any nutritional value that to fortify them with anything doesn’t really make them much better. But to fortify them with something detrimental is even worse.

You’ve probably seen advertisements extolling the virtues of foods that lower cholesterol, but lowering cholesterol is not the same thing as reducing the risk of heart disease. When we hear the words “proven to lower cholesterol”, it’s not always accompanied by “which lowers your risk of heart disease”, largely as we imagine that latter sentence to be so logical that it doesn’t need verbalising. But reducing cholesterol and reducing the risk of heart disease are not one and the same thing.

Walk past that junk in the aisles.