More Evidence that “anti-HIV” drugs are NOT Specific to “HIV”

A clinical trial of tenofovir (Truvada) in pregnant women with Hepatitis B

I subscribe to the Journal of the American Medical Association online; most of the time what they send me is useless but occasionally I come across some unintentional gold, which is why I have yet to unsubscribe. Today, we see the results of a trial of tenofovir (aka Truvada) as a hepatitis B preventative among pregnant women. But wait—I thought these drugs were “highly specific” to “HIV”? (Of course, we know they’re not, given that the covid treatment Paxlovid contains ritonavir, an “anti-HIV” protease inhibitor.)

Their nonspecificity ought to completely invalidate the “proof of concept” that because “anti-HIV” drugs sometimes appear to work (despite their massive toxicities that the AIDS activists have long attempted to cover up), that “HIV” must be the cause of AIDS—which, as we know, is the only evidence the HIV AIDS apologists have left to support their theory. What, then, does the apparent success of said drugs in conditions such as hepatitis B and long covid indicate about causation of those conditions? Clearly, we need more information.

Tenofovir and Hepatitis B Virus Transmission During Pregnancy A Randomized Clinical Trial

The first thing I noticed was that this study investigated “bad Truvada,” or TDF.

Question  In pregnant individuals with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and high viremia, is initiation of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) at gestational week 16 combined with HBV vaccinations of infants noninferior to initiation of TDF at week 28 combined with HBV vaccinations and HBV immune globulin (HBIG) in preventing mother-to-child transmission?

We’re really in 1984 newspeak territory here. Noninferior? As in, no worse than? Already, this isn’t promising at all. The idea behind this study is to compare the standard treatment of HBV-positive mothers with a combination of TDF and hepatitis B immunoglobulin at 28 weeks to a treatment of TDF alone initiated at 16 weeks, plus vaccination of the infants at birth. The reason behind this is that in many cases, the immunoglobulin is not available. The objective is therefore to determine whether initiating TDF earlier, in the absence of immunoglobulin, would perform worse than the gold standard of care. This isn’t AIDS related, so I won’t spend too much time on this, but there are some notable items:

Design, Setting, and Participants  An unblinded, 2-group, randomized, noninferiority clinical trial was conducted in 7 tertiary care hospitals in China. A total of 280 pregnant individuals (who all identified as women) with HBV DNA levels greater than 200 000 IU/mL were enrolled between June 4, 2018, and February 8, 2021. The final follow-up occurred on March 1, 2022.

“Who all identified as women”? What? Regardless, let’s look at how this protocol compared with the “standard of care.”

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was the MTCT rate, defined as detectable HBV DNA greater than 20 IU/mL or hepatitis B surface antigen positivity in infants at age 28 weeks. Noninferiority was established if the MTCT rate in the experimental group did not increase by more than an absolute difference of 3% compared with the standard care group, as measured by the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI.

Results  Among 280 pregnant individuals who enrolled in the trial (mean age, 28 years; mean gestational age at enrollment, 16 weeks), 265 (95%) completed the study. Among all live-born infants, using the last observation carried forward, the MTCT rate was 0.76% (1/131) in the experimental group and 0% (0/142) in the standard care group. In the per-protocol analysis, the MTCT rate was 0% (0/124) in the experimental group and 0% (0/141) in the standard care group. The between-group difference was 0.76% (upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI, 1.74%) in all live-born infants and 0% (upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI, 1.43%) in the per-protocol analysis. Both comparisons met the criterion for noninferiority. Rates of congenital defects and malformations were 2.3% (3/131) in the experimental group and 6.3% (9/142) in the standard care group (difference, 4% [2-sided 95% CI, −8.8% to 0.7%]).

I love the term “pregnant individuals.” Actually, no, I hate it. As a woman, I find this incredibly offensive.

Regardless, these results are rather underwhelming; I won’t discuss them in detail—you can see from the quote above that the experimental group and the standard care group performed similarly. But that’s not the important part of this study. There are, in my view, two important things to note about this study, and they have nothing to do with the supposed vertical transmission of hepatitis B. We have the following:

1. The clear intention of this additional protocol is the “retention in care” of as many pregnant women as possible that have any hint of hepatitis B. Depending on your view of the dangers of a hepatitis B diagnosis, it could be argued that this is a good thing. Regardless, it is yet another example of the chokehold the pharmaceutical industry has on all of “public health.”

2. The most important takeaway from this study is that Truvada (in this case, “bad Truvada”) is not specific to “HIV.” This is critically important, because the ONLY argument the HIV AIDS apologists have in favor of their pet theory is the supposed effectiveness of these “highly specific antiretroviral drugs.” It is ALL they have left. The HIV AIDS theory has been decidedly falsified on nearly every front. Here is just a short sampling of the problems with the HIV AIDS story (you can check out a detailed list in my post on failed predictions of the HIV AIDS story):

• Epidemiologically, the incidence of “HIV” positivity does not reflect that of an infectious disease, since it has been completely flat at 0.3% of the U.S. population for forty years;

• There is STILL no agreed-upon mechanism of “HIV”-mediated T-cell depletion (do a simple web search if you don’t believe me);

• There are at least three times as many non-“HIV” AIDS patients (in the form of ME/CFS victims) as there are “HIV” positive AIDS patients, indicating that “HIV” is not necessary for AIDS;

• There are many unmedicated “HIV” positive individuals (globally, approximately 25-40% of PLHIV are unmedicated; in the U.S. that number is actually higher—there are more unmedicated patients in the U.S. than globally) that are not showing up with full-blown AIDS, indicating that “HIV” is not sufficient for AIDS;

• Even the mainstream now admits that “untreated HIV infection may lead to AIDS”;

• “HIV” itself is not a well-defined entity, as no two identical strains have been identified even in the same patient, leading to its being labeled a “quasispecies.”

I think you get the point here. “HIV” was announced forty plus years ago as the cause of AIDS via press conference before any supporting evidence appeared in the medical literature, which is highly unusual. If one refers back to the transcript of the press conference itself, one can understand why this happened. At the press conference, Dr. Robert Gallo proudly claimed that “over 90%” of his AIDS patients had antibody to “HIV.” However, he did NOT mention the fact at the press conference that fewer than half of his AIDS patients had any hint of “HIV” associated genetic material. The theory should have been dead at that point.

Now, all the apologists have left is this smoke and mirrors regarding these “highly specific antiretroviral drugs.” However, AIDS deaths began to drop in 1993-94, before the advent of HAART and the approval of the protease inhibitors in 1996. But, more concerningly, their claims that these drugs are “highly specific” are provably wrong, and this study is yet one more nail in the coffin of their pet theory. The drugs have been hailed as the apex of pharmaceutical technology, but it’s all a smokescreen. The benefits of these drugs, if any, can perhaps be attributed to their potential anti-inflammatory properties. But let us not forget their massive toxicities—ask any of the 26,000 plus Truvada victims. And we’re giving these to pregnant women and their infants, even in the case where “HIV” isn’t even involved. Something is very, very wrong here.