I was thinking tonight of an interesting phenomenon I’ve noticed among even some more skeptical individuals and that is the following: when prescribed a medication for the express purpose of alleviating particular symptoms (which may include laboratory test results), it is human nature to NOT want to know too much about how the drug works or doesn’t work, so long as it provides that immediate positive feedback. I’m sure you’ve noticed this yourself.
So my question is as follows: The argument that “HIV” causes AIDS, at this point, rests nearly entirely on the apparent effectiveness of the medications, despite the fact that we know that they are not specific to “HIV” and in fact have a grim side effect profile. WHY do you suppose so many people are willing to take these drugs, despite no illness whatsoever, and despite the catastrophic side effects that occur? What about them makes them appear to “work”? (Recall that according to the HIV AIDS dogmatists, “work” means reduce viral load, period.) Is there some kind of Stockholm syndrome in effect? What is the psychology behind “retention in care?”
To support my work on Substack, please purchase my book for yourself or for a friend, and leave a review on Amazon. You can learn about efforts to ban my book here. You can also buy my new book Almost Cancelled. Or consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!
If you’re a new reader and would like some background as to my views on HIV AIDS, including the “existence” question, please refer to this post and the links contained therein. My interview with Sam Bailey is also a great introduction.
I've done a lot of thinking about this. Why do some of us question and so many don't? A lot of guys take these drugs because they believe it frees them to have a kind of sex they were denied prior to PrEP. It's a powerful motivation to stay hooked in the paradigm that people believe keeps them safe.
I've mentioned this before, but for me the fact that I had to break away from heavy religious indoctrination gave me some experience with this process. We are social creatures, we need to belong to the dominant paradigm which is sort of the modern expression of needing to belong to the tribe. For gay men this means embracing the Left, given the historical prejudice of conservatism (which I totally get). That's exactly why I was so Left leaning for such a long time, I went from a hyper-conservative religious environment and made a b-line right over to the Left because it was the one place that carved out a place for me. But the price in that meant accepting the religion of the Left which is science. And most guys taking these drugs believe the Left is the party of science. As long as they adhere to its tenets, they're good, they're kept safe and it blinds them to any potential negatives.
Getting tested frequently is so similar to how we had to have bishops interviews frequently as teenagers, in order to be found worthy (or not). Getting frequently tested and having negative test results is like a ritual that reaffirms a guys 'worthiness' I think. It's interesting when you think about this from a linguistic standpoint, where negative equals good and positive equals bad. In order to 'atone' for the bad thing of being 'positive' you have to take the holy pills to keep you in good standing.
Ultimately though, most people are just going to flow with what they know and have been told, and that means trusting authority figures who tell them what the truth is. It takes a lot of internal fortitude to break away from authority figures. 'Here, take this drug, it's good for you, it'll keep you safe'. It's like going to church each week, and taking the sacrament and renewing your committments to the church/god and those will keeps you spiritually safe from the boogyman (Satan). To me that's the biggest parallel between my experience with religion and HIV/AIDS. Be obedient to what you're told and you'll be safe. If you don't, you'll become spiritually sick. Follow the science, if you don't you'll become sick. But the price to pay for this putative safety is compliance to religious standards that are actually toxic to a gay person's emotional and mental health. We say 'retained in care' for the medical system, but in the religion the equivalent term was 'enduring to the end'.
My wild guess: people assume that if they behave and take the drugs they can get cookies as a reward for being obedient and uncritical citizens. And by cookies I mean money or perks or status.
Mostly unrelated to this, when I started taking SSRIs 25 years go, I didn't do it because of economic/social nudges. I did it for two reasons: one, I didn't know the risks (for that matter, I think my psychiatrist didn't know either; plausible deniability is a lifestyle as valid as any other lifestyles ;-D ) and the second reason is that I really believed that the antidepressant drug would improve my situation. It didn't. Those drugs only caused troubles, some of which I think last to this day.
By the way, there was some speculation years ago (now kept tightly under wraps) that SSRIs perhaps cause colon cancer, even years after stopping the treatment. «Fooling around with neurotransmitters ain't so swell as we previously thought» will be the laconic headline in some News website of the year 2035 or so.
But, going back to the so called "medication" for AIDS, the first lines of my comment may be very cynical, but I think I can do even a more cynical comment.
Perhaps psychiatric patients believe more intensely that they are ill, because they actually feel badly, but AIDS patients who feel fine just want to "feel bad" because they think that's what they are supposed to do to make doctors and activists happy, and so their particular degree of belief may be zero.
The non-empty intersection of the two subsets is interesting: the young people who feel bad in the soul but not too bad in the body and don't know what else to do but obey the propaganda, like any other young person trapped by psychiatry.
The Science(TM) has turned out to be worse than "conversion therapy."
I laugh but I think this is all a great injustice.