I didn’t need to use the word gotterdamerung; I just used it because my blog titles have felt a bit bland recently.
I discovered the word because I’m on‘s list (I have been for at least a decade). It basically refers to a violent end to something. I don’t think it’s a word I’ll be using often but I like how it looks and sounds, and what it means so I think it’s apt to employ it for this post.

I’ve not been aware of how many other cholesterol sceptics are also critical of HIV causing AIDS, but it turns out there are many of them – and they’ve been banging the gavel long before me.
One of these is Joan Shenton of the Immunity Resource Foundation (an organisation physically local to me) who has produced many mainstream, critical and applauded documentaries for UK and foreign television through the Meditel company. A good number of AIDS documentaries are free to view on IRFs site from the Meditel archive, but it seems Ms. Shenton is struggling to pay for the site, so relies on donations to keep it running.

There are no programs about the cholesterol hypothesis there, but she was behind 1989’s The Cholesterol Campaign which I’m eager to track down. Most of her campaigning though is to do with HIV, which really does seem to be the bigger scandal as the HIV story is riddled with fraud while the cholesterol theory really is just poor science and nothing more, and cholesterol lowering drugs are not highly toxic. Another HIV sceptic Henry Bauer has also written in his book the fallacy of the cholesterol hypothesis, although I must admit I have not read the book (yet).
Of course, we live in a large world where many people share opinions but it is comforting to be aware of other such individuals because even though you think you may be right, and may well be, there is always safety in numbers.

One thing that got my brain rolling was comments I saw somewhere on Bauer’s blog that pondered why dissidents of a theory don’t band together to fund the studies mainstreamers won’t allow. While I don’t know how the logistics would work it is an interesting question to me. Fans can fund bands nowadays, so why not studies? If dissidents can’t make a dent by kicking against the house, maybe they need to make a house themselves?

I have noticed that Dr. John Cannell of The Vitamin D Council is running a reward based ‘study’ to see if one vitamin D testing lab is better than another, and that is quite interesting. People need to provide proof of their results to claim the reward and be entered into the study, but the directness of the internet can help bypass the red tape science has to face. Of course though you need trusting subjects and a trusting researcher. I fundamentally believe though that people who care about a subject will not be dishonest. That much faith I do have in the human race. Anecdotal evidence is fine as an entrée, but it doesn’t convince someone. Or at least it shouldn’t. My blog posts on vitamin D provide personal evidence but I make it clear that I’m just observing, not studying.

Anyway, I’m continuing on my writing projects which is why I’ve still only been tweeting and not blogging.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s