Apparently cross sex hormones stop “HIV”…. Or something

This is a parody of itself

This will be a very short piece, but I want to alert you to the following rather bizarre article. It is a quite strange piece on how offering hormone therapy to trans-identified individuals might “reduce the risk of ‘HIV’” among this demographic. This is really weird, so let’s just dive right in.

Gender-affirming care may reduce the risk of HIV among trans, nonbinary and gender-diverse people

Before we dive into this (blessedly short) piece, I’d like to ask you to take yourself back in time to the mid-1990s or thereabouts. Would you have ever imagined that, back in 1985-1996 or so, the state of “AIDS research” in 2025 would involve prescribing PrEP to “gender diverse” people? (Could the scheme to marginalize and exploit via “retention in care” the gay, Black, and “gender diverse” communities possibly be clearer?)

No, of course not. Back in the 1980s we’d have assumed that a vaccine against “HIV” would long have since eventuated, if not a cure. As we know, this has not happened and almost certainly never will.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) is associated with significantly improved HIV outcomes for transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse (trans) people in the U.S., according to a new study published in The Lancet HIV.

I’m curious what their “health outcomes” are. Might they be actual clinically relevant symptoms, or some sort of surrogate marker gobbledygook? (That might be the first time in my entire life I’ve ever typed the word “gobbledygook.”) Well, spoiler alert—it’s “acquisition of ‘HIV’,” and “viral non-suppression,” which have zilch to do with morbidity and mortality.

The study, part of the LEGACY cohort, which analyzed data from more than 8,000 trans patients receiving care at federally qualified health centers, found that compared to trans patients not prescribed GAHT, patients prescribed GAHT had a 37% reduced risk of acquiring HIV, and a 44% lower risk of viral non-suppression (where levels of the virus in the blood are high and can lead to disease progression and HIV transmission to others) for those living with HIV.

These numbers don’t really mean anything. They’re the equivalent of a correlation coefficient of nowhere near 1 (which is meaningless).

In the U.S., trans people (who have a gender identity that differs from the sex assigned to them at birth) have higher rates of HIV and worse HIV treatment outcomes compared to cisgender people, including higher viral non-suppression rates. Previous research has found that GAHT is medically necessary for many trans people and is thought to improve health outcomes. However, few studies have assessed the association between GAHT and HIV acquisition in trans individuals.

The study highlights disparities in HIV rates among racial and ethnic minority groups, with Black, Latinx, and multiracial trans people experiencing disproportionately high rates of HIV, which may be linked to structural barriers in health care access, such as having lower socioeconomic status or living in poverty.

How is being economically disadvantaged related whatsoever to testing positive for “HIV”? This article is so confusing; it doesn’t seem to know what it’s trying to say. We do know that rates of “HIV” positivity are stratified by race and age; but this would seem to indicate, if anything, the fact that “HIV” positivity is not contagious. Period.

The study also found low rates of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake in the cohort, which the authors say represents another future intervention target to reduce HIV rates, and that integrating GAHT with services such as PrEP and HIV treatment may help to further reduce transmission rates and improve health outcomes for trans people in the U.S.

Of course, this entire thing is just a scam to promote PrEP. Have you noticed that this article is almost entirely speculation, with very few pieces of hard evidence to back any of their claims up?

These findings support the evidence for the medical use of GAHT in trans adults and call for expanded access to gender-affirming care as part of national HIV prevention and treatment strategies.

I notice they refer to “trans adults”—might this be a reaction to the ridiculous transing of children that became popular some years ago? It seems relevant that they feel the need to specify that we’re discussing transitioning adults. I have to say that the fact that we’re walking back transitioning children is encouraging.

The authors call for more research and funding into research for trans people living with HIV, especially in regions outside of North America and Europe, and to ensure that all trans people have access to appropriate health care.

Of course the authors “call for more research;” however, they’re contradicting themselves here. More research and funding for people “living with ‘HIV’?” So they AREN’T pushing PrEP now? I’m confused. I feel like almost every journal article calls for “further research.”

However, on a meta level, we have to examine the fact that both the transgender agenda and the “HIV” agenda are both serving the same masters. They are both hell-bent on “retaining in care” as many people as possible on life long medication as possible, be it PrEP, antiretrovirals, or “gender affirming hormone therapy.” (Or perhaps, optimally, all of them.) Why on earth are they trying to marry the two communities? And that, I think, is the main problem we need to address at this time. I have never in my entire life seen such a desperate money grab, but something tells me that isn’t all that’s happening here, with this active targeting of marginalized groups. What say you—what is going on here?