“High number of people on PrEP stop taking it”
The phenomenon is explained by invoking “housing insecurity”—not side effects
Open thread at the end!
Here’s a very quick report on a four year study of PrEP-naive individuals, which found that the rate of continuing uptake was quite disappointing, with nearly 40% discontinuing the regimen.
High Number of People on HIV-Preventing PrEP Stop Using It
The drug combo known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is now a mainstay of HIV prevention among gay and bisexual males and other groups at high risk of infection.
However, research from the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy in New York City finds a large percentage of people who start PrEP later stop using it.
[…]
Unfortunately, many at-risk people who were approached about PrEP didn't initiate it "and more alarming, [there were] high rates of discontinuation among those who started," Grov said in a CUNY news release.
Overall, between 35% and 40% of people who began PrEP went on to discontinue use over the four years of the study.
Money woes could be driving that trend: "Housing instability" was a key risk factor for quitting PrEP, the researchers reported.
The article does not state how many people were actually enrolled in this study—and the link to the study itself does not lead to the study but to a splash page with no apparent link—so it is impossible to know what these statistics even mean, and I’m not even sure it matters in this case, because the headline is really what matters as it indicates a narrative shift away from “if only people would be more compliant, we could end AIDS.” I am encouraged that people are doing a risk-benefit analysis on PrEP and finding it lacking. I’m also curious to hear how the reporting pivots in the next few years when it becomes clear that PrEP is not the “key to end HIV” after all. It’s already falling apart.
Also, not totally unrelated: Open thread time—why is there still no HIV vaccine? I really want to know what you think. It makes no sense on the face of it. I mean, they created a “Covid” vaccine in months and that supposedly has about 17,000 variants (I’m using hyperbole—don’t come after me). What is the purpose of keeping this charade going for so long?
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 minibook about censorship in AIDS, Almost Cancelled.
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.
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.'
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.'