Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Amy's avatar

I'd be curious to know how this percentage compares to that of people with HIV discontinuing ARVs (the infamous "lost to care"). Side effects tend to be swept under the rug by the medical community on the basis that experiencing side effects, no matter how bad they are, is still better than dying from HIV (or getting HIV, as far as PrEP is concerned). TAF is one hell of a drug to deal with, and it can make you feel infinitely more crap in many ways - extreme tiredness, joint pains, depression and suicidal ideation being just a few "treats" that come with it. It's hard to see the added value of taking it once the fear factor is removed.

As to why there's no vaccine, I have always wondered how they would be able to differentiate the good antibodies to HIV (induced by that elusive vaccine) from the bad antibodies (caused by the infection). I doubt an Elisa test would be able to pick that. Plus, they'll have to find a good explanation to get away with the conflicting narrative of 'You have HIV antibodies, it's good, you're protected' vs. ' You have HIV antibodies, it's bad, you're infected.'

Expand full comment
Tom254's avatar

One thing that has really helped me since the massive assault on objective reality by the media / 'science' / gov began in 2020 is to immediately translate the obscene BS they spew into the actual truth. For example, with this headline, I translate as I'm reading it to: "High number of people taking the incredibly toxic chemo-poison 'prep' that 'prevents' the fake-virus 'HIV' stop taking it (I wonder why?? Maybe they're not suicidally stupid?)" Same goes for Pharma commercials when for some reason I can't either hit 'mute' or change the channel. I mean... it's better than throwing something at the screen, right?

About the 'HIV' vaccine question, I submitted my best guess in one of your previous posts but here it is again:

"This is a really interesting observation that I wonder about too... Why has there been no HIV vaccine ('normal' or mRNA)? They make vaccines for every disease, or virus, or whatever, but not 'HIV.' All the 'safety testing' for vaccines is obscenely rigged (using other toxic vaccines as a 'placebo' etc). So it can't be that the HIV vaccines were 'unsafe' because all the other ones are also unsafe (and they obviously don't care about safety when AZT etc are also obviously unsafe). And by definition most vaccines are completely useless if the 'virus' doesn't even exist. And also they are useless in fact as well, as they have done nothing to prevent any disease. So lack of effectiveness never stopped them before either.

So what is different about HIV and why didn't they make a vaccine for it?

It seems to me that HIV for whatever reason is treated more like cancer, with super-toxic 'treatments' that cost a lot and are extended duration (rather than occasional, relatively cheap vaccines). It's probably a more profitable model, and I recently saw a vaccine for Anthrax described as 'PReP' so I suspect Pharma is moving to a more 'subscription-based' model for these things (and needless to say, the halo over the word 'vaccine' has become a bit sullied lately). They can make more money getting everyone constantly taking expensive poisons rather than occasional vaccines."

Edit: I forgot to mention-- 'covid' 'reality' has far outstripped hyperbole-- there are 300,000+ 'variants' of 'sars-cov-2' (of course all computer models, none found in real life) so your hyperbole was actually tame in comparison to the 'reality.'

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts