“Long Acting Injectable” ARVs and PrEP for HOMELESS PEOPLE

Let’s just retain everyone in care—what could go wrong?

Here is yet more nonsense from the good folks at Poz:

Long-Acting Injectables Are Effective for Homeless People

As though being homeless weren’t enough of a life problem, it appears that the pressure is now on to medicate every homeless person in San Francisco with antiretroviral medications, regardless of “HIV” status.

The pilot study, which appears in JAIDS, enrolled a whopping thirty-three (33!) participants, and “most” on ARVs “achieved viral suppression,” while there were no “seroconversions” among those taking PrEP.

I won’t bore you with too many block quotes, because this is all just so much of the same propaganda we’ve seen around ARVs for the past thirty years and, more recently, and even more alarmingly, around the use of PrEP. As always, all emphasis is mine.

All modern antiretroviral therapy (ART) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)regimens are safe and effective, so success often comes down to consistent use. But some people have trouble maintaining good adherence because they forget to take pills every day, are concerned about having pill bottles that could reveal their HIV status or are living in situations where their meds could be lost or stolen. About a third of people diagnosed with HIV in the United States have not achieved viral suppression, which means they are at risk for disease progression and could transmit the virus to others.

Safe and effective? Really? Tell that to the 26,000 plaintiffs in the Truvada lawsuits, which included those using Truvada for PrEP. We then move into the scolding of patients who only take their medications “inconsistently.”

This pilot study included 33 homeless or unstably housed people who started long-acting ART or PrEP at the Maria X. Martinez Health Resource Center between November 2021 and November 2023. Part of the San Francisco Department of Public Health’s Whole Person Integrated Care program, the clinic provides low-barrier primary and urgent care for people experiencing homelessness. Services are provided on a drop-in basis six days a week at an accessible location near the Tenderloin district. In addition, the clinic works with satellite sites and street medicine teams to deliver injections at other locations, such as syringe access programs, homeless shelters, tent encampments and a local jail.

33 patients—can you spell “statistically insignificant?” The trial enrolled 18 patients with “HIV,” and 15 patients taking PrEP. Also, it’s a little disturbing that these homeless people are being taken advantage of in this way. It’s more than a little reminiscent of other situations in which disenfranchised individuals have been enrolled in programs that later turned out to be disastrous for their communities. I’m sure you can think of such similar situations that have occurred in the past.

The long-acting antiretrovirals proved highly effective. All but one of the HIV-positive people achieved or maintained viral suppression over an average follow-up period of about 10 months, and all of the participants on PrEP remained HIV negative over an average five months of follow-up. Adherence was good in both groups: Of the 224 injections administered, just 8% were delayed more than a week.

It’s illuminating to check out the article itself. A total of 15 patients out of 33 were taking the injectable for PrEP, in a study that lasted two years (November 2021 to November 2023). Given the difficulty of “transmitting ‘HIV’,” it is highly likely that no seroconversions would have occurred in such a small sample over a course of only two years.

I’ve noticed that many outlets in the legacy media have picked up on the “100% success rate!” of lenacapavir, the twice-yearly injectable currently being trialed in South Africa and Uganda. First of all, the trials have not yet concluded (only the first phase has ended), and toxicity—which must be significant in a twice yearly injection—is glossed over. However, one thing has not been noted by the legacy media and that is that their participants were all cisgender biological women, a group that has significantly lower levels of “HIV” positivity than other risk groups. It would be informative to run a placebo controlled trial, but of course that isn’t going to happen. (The “placebo” used in this case was Truvada, or TDF. Enough said.)

Regardless, this piece is yet more confirmation that the public health establishment and the pharmaceutical companies are eager to retain as many people as possible “in care,” to the point that they are willing to take advantage of people that are already in a very difficult situation. This latest development is concerning, but ultimately not surprising. Hopefully the public will be alerted to the toxicities of these medications, the bankruptcy of the HIV AIDS story, and more importantly, the creepy tactics of the public health czars—aided by the AIDS activists and including rampant censorship of the toxicities of said medications—sooner rather than later.

To support my work on Substack, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.