Defending AZT to Throw Kennedy & Musk Under the Bus
This is unbelievable
The AIDS activists have become so desperate that they have taken to X in droves to defend AZT. This has come in response to the post by Elon Musk that recently appeared on X and has caused a firestorm of criticism, much of which we will get to in short order. Here is the image of Musk’s post (that link will take you to his actual X post; this is just the image):
It’s time once again to discuss the OG “anti-HIV” drug, AZT, which actually started out in the 1960s as a cancer chemotherapeutic, only to be resurrected in 1987 as a treatment for AIDS. AZT has been widely acknowledged to have some serious safety concerns, which RFK Jr explained in detail in The Real Anthony Fauci—the reason I included RFK in the headline although this post is mostly about Musk; RFK’s criticism of AZT is surely a problem for the AIDS activists. However, in the wake of Musk’s post, a most curious phenomenon has arisen: People are suddenly defending AZT, when previously it has been mostly ignored since it’s an embarrassment to the scientific community.
As a reminder, out of over thirty “anti-HIV” medications currently being prescribed, only one (Combivir) contains zidovudine (the generic name for AZT). Why might that be?
Let’s begin by reminding ourselves of the laundry list of toxic effects of AZT, per Wikipedia, not exactly a repository of skepticism:
Early long-term higher-dose therapy with AZT was initially associated with side effects that sometimes limited therapy, including anemia, neutropenia, hepatotoxicity, cardiomyopathy, and myopathy. All of these conditions were generally found to be reversible upon reduction of AZT dosages. They have been attributed to several possible causes, including transient depletion of mitochondrial DNA, sensitivity of the γ-DNA polymerase in some cell mitochondria,[30] the depletion of thymidine triphosphate, oxidative stress, reduction of intracellular L-carnitine or apoptosis of the muscle cells.[31] Anemia due to AZT was successfully treated using erythropoetin to stimulate red blood cell production.[32][33] Drugs that inhibit hepatic glucuronidation, such as indomethacin, nordazepam, acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) and trimethoprim decreased the elimination rate and increased the therapeutic strength of the medication.[34]
We’ve discussed AZT on this Substack several times before, although until now, even the AIDS activists have attempted to pretend the scandal never occurred in order to not address such a profound failure in treatment. Now, they’re coming out and blatantly claiming that not one single person died as a result of AZT. I would like now to direct you to the following link—it’s to John Lauritsen’s book AZT: Poison by Prescription, and it is available for free with a trial:
Poison by Prescription: The AZT Story
Lauritsen’s book discusses the history of AZT, which began its life as a cancer chemotherapeutic that quickly failed, only to be resurrected in 1987 as an “antiretroviral” drug, despite its being no such thing. Remember, none of these “antiretroviral drugs” is specific to “HIV.” Not one. (If you read the Wikipedia link above, you’ll see that AZT has some “antimicrobial” effects, which might explain why in some cases it may have appeared to help.) Lauritsen documents AZT’s many toxicities, with effects ranging from anemia to cancer. You can also check out Lauritsen’s TV interview about AZT, in which he takes questions from callers that take a far more realistic tone than the AIDS drug pushers do today. Also, for more information about AZT, check out the Perth Group’s Monograph on Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV—it discusses AZT specifically.
Indeed, AZT is rarely prescribed anymore. Instead, it has been replaced as the most popular “anti-HIV” drug by the also highly toxic Truvada—a drug that, lest we forget, is at the center of a 26,000+ person class action lawsuit, in addition to multiple state-level lawsuits and even one in Canada, because its manufacturer, Gilead Sciences, intentionally covered up its toxic effects on the kidneys and bones. And note that Truvada is in the same class of drug as AZT—a “nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI).” “Nucleoside analogue” means that it terminates DNA synthesis. This causes cell death, not as a bug but as a feature—the idea behind these medications is similar to that of cancer chemotherapy: try to kill enough of the cells that “harbor HIV” without killing the patient. With AZT, the gamble did not pay off. If AZT weren’t toxic, why on earth would it be replaced by a drug that is provably toxic?
Here are just a few of the pro-AZT X posts; if you click on the post it should take you directly to the page on which it appeared initially.
Oh, the “experts” say it’s safe and saved lives? Kind of like the experts that claimed the Covid vaccines stopped transmission?
There are no testimonies from AZT patients, because hardly anyone uses AZT anymore, because it killed people. Iatrogenically murdered patients cannot provide testimonials.
I’m not sure if this one is for or against AZT, honestly. This user might actually be against it. (Let me know what you think.)
Ooh, he’s been “community noted.” That’ll teach him.
These people are deluded. Also, “Woke Ex-Republican?” What??
Zero deaths? That’s pretty amazing; almost no drug on the market has such a rich safety profile! Even Tylenol has caused plenty of deaths.
Again, AZT was developed not as “the first HIV antiviral” but as a cancer chemotherapeutic that was resurrected as an “anti-HIV” drug because the AIDS activists were clamoring for “drugs into bodies,” whereupon AZT was fast-tracked because it was the only game in town. That turned out to be a disaster, which has not ended, given the myriad problems with Truvada.
I’m not sure what “ethic protocols” Moses is referring to—this post is all over the place.
This guy was really on AZT for over a decade as a teenager? If that’s the case, I would love to talk to him personally and hear his experience for myself.
No comment. This user can’t even bother to properly capitalize.
AZT is currently only a component of one (out of thirty plus) “anti-HIV” treatments, and it is not a popular one. It’s barely ever used.
Fact check: false. Unfortunately, we may never know how many victims of AZT there were.
Elon Musk questions AZT and somehow this is equivalent to January 6? That’s a wild stretch indeed.
Again, I’m sure Musk is quaking in his boots at having been “community noted.” Whatever that means.
I love how AZT is lauded as fantastic post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP)—one user mentions that it was successfully used as PEP following needle stick accidents. In reality, it is impossible to know if AZT as PEP prevented any “seroconversions,” because it was never trialed for PEP. Also, if AZT were so fantastic, how come it is not a component of any formulation of PrEP? It can’t be because we have “new, improved” classes of drugs—after a short honeymoon with the protease inhibitors in the 1990s, the AIDS establishment has returned to primarily prescribing NRTIs for both ART and PrEP. Again, AZT and Truvada are both NRTIs.
So what are these X users attempting to do, exactly? Why are they suddenly flocking in droves to the platform, in order to defend an indefensible drug as a kind of “gotcha” that falls utterly flat under the weight of all the evidence regarding said drug’s dismal safety profile and lack of specificity to the very agent it is intended to treat? I really want to know.
They're probably mostly trolls.
Wow, the only thing I can take away from this is that the HIV lie is so mind-warping as a paradigm that obvious poison is seen as a kind of amazing saving substance. One of the things the Perth Group pointed out, I believe it was in the long BMJ debate, was that AZT couldn't possible have actual DNA-chain terminating properties. In order for this to happen, it would need to go through a tri-phosphorylation process by the cell in order to become an active metabolite, but they point to something like 6 pharmacokinetic papers, 5 of which showed it did this by at least one order of magnitude too little to have any theoretical DNA chain terminating effects. AZT was simply a powerful oxidizing agent that was a kind of biochemical blowtorch to healthy biochemical processes.
This mind-warping effect surrounding HIV and AZT, where black is white and white is black, is also seen in the use of benzodiazepines, many antibiotics, and other pharmaceuticals that cause physical devastation to people. The medical establishment is in a kind of utter denial. Listening to many interviews with people who were serious messed up by benzos is a hard things to do, but you walk away from these interviews knowing one thing, the medical 'professionals' who prescribed them are often the harbingers of destruction in peoples' lives via their prescriptions, and are in complete denial, unable to see it, often blaming peoples' severe reactions to these drugs as just part of the problem they are trying to treat WITH the drugs. It's terrifying.