If you recall the iPrEx PrEP study, the only justification for claiming “99% effectiveness” of PrEP against “acquiring HIV” involved extrapolating from their actual data to infer such a high effectiveness rate, because said rate was not supported by the data obtained during the trial. Indeed, their conclusion was that the only way for PrEP to “work” is to take it every single day. Here is the piece about this promising new treatment. Note that the pill might be on the way. Emphasis is mine throughout.
A new, once-a-week PrEP pill might be on the way
As most people who takes PrEP daily will tell you, remembering to take it can be a chore. Injectable PrEP is now available but only a small number of men are using it. We’re sure most daily users would jump at the chance of switching to a once-a-week pill.
Of course, we know that adherence to PrEP has been disappointing, to say the least. This is why the future is long term injectables—but even those have disappointing uptake, perhaps because they require a doctor visit to administer the shot. Well, now we have a new alternative in the wings: a once-a-week long acting PrEP pill. Given that the official narrative tells us that only daily pills will provide adequate protection, I wonder how this will work. I’m especially concerned with the toxicities that might occur given such a high dose of a damaging drug, all at once.
It appears a race is now on to get such a pill to the market. The CDC recently announced encouraging results from studies of a new, once-a-week PrEP tablet. It contains tenofovir alafenamide (TAF). This is a newer formulation of tenofovir disoproxil (TDF), the drug found in Truvada.
I love the language here. A race is now on (George Jones, anyone?) to get such a pill to market? A race between whom? Gilead and Merck, apparently; Merck has come up with “MK-8527, a new nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor” that may be suitable for weekly dosing. I notice that this weekly pill contains “good Truvada,” which as we know, has its own issues with toxic side effects.
The study cited is interesting because it involves administering PrEP to macaques and attempting to infect them with “HIV,” which is curious because, as Peter Duesberg pointed out lo these many years ago, macaques do occasionally “seroconvert,” but they stubbornly refuse to develop AIDS.
The CDC tested various dosages of TAF on monkeys. Researchers measured the levels of the drug in their system after six days. They also attempted to infect the monkeys with HIV. They repeated this process over several weeks and checked each week to see if the monkey’s [sic] acquired the virus.
The study found that TAF, at a certain dosage once a week, offers 94% protection from acquiring HIV.
Of course, that might not be a high enough protection level to encourage many regular PrEP users to switch from daily pills. However, the researchers feel it is encouraging enough for further research.
So we’re already backing way, way off the “99%” figure. No wonder PrEP abandonment is so high. Anything less than perfect efficacy virtually guarantees a seroconversion, at least per the official story.
Having lots of options allows for flexibility. Also, taking a once-a-week PrEP pill that offers 94% effectiveness is potentially better than taking daily PrEP if you keep missing several doses every week.
It could also prove a game-changer if rolled out in parts of the world where distributing free, daily medication is a challenge. Getting people on to any sort of PrEP is better than none at all.
There is some desperation in this language. Basically they’re saying, okay this doesn’t work that well, but it’s better than nothing, and we want you “retained in care” up to and beyond when and if you seroconvert, sealing your fate as a lifelong Pharma customer. The piece concludes with some vague promises about all the long lasting options that are just around the corner, but what really strikes me is the fact that, clearly, most of the target audience for PrEP really doesn’t want to take it. I can’t say I blame them, because the future looks very grim indeed if we end up administering these toxic medications to large groups of people, in such high doses, en masse.
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 new book Almost Cancelled. Or consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!
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. My interview with Sam Bailey is also a great introduction.
Everything is so werid these days. Sexual promiscuity used to be punished and stigmatized, but at least it belonged to the willing participants. It was their privacy and intimacy. Now, initimacy belongs to public health, and people not only need a permision slip from authorities, they also need to buy and use drugs even if they don't want to.
Privacy has been Nationalized!
Writing a scientific paper is an art in itself. But, not an art of explaining in clear, concise language the process of testing a logical hypothesis using a set of well executed experiments. Rather, it is an art of using ambiguous, jargon-laden language to obfuscate the process of testing a faulty hypothesis based on flawed assumptions which necessarily resulted in a set of failed experiments.
Least used feature in a scientific paper- the affirmative statement. Most used feature- the conditional statement. Thus, scientific papers are filled with phrases that imply evidence exists when, in fact, hard evidence is absent, in order to give readers the false impression of hard evidence.
Having read hundreds of these horrid creations, one learns to interpret. “Encouraging results,” in reality, likely means “failed results.” And, “attempting to infect” surely means “failed to infect.”
Next is the irrelevant results category. So, various dosages of TAF were given to monkeys and the drug level measured after six days. But that experiment tells us nothing about TAF and its effect on a target which itself has never been scientifically proven to exist.
Likewise, an experiment can be designed, using cells in a cell culture flask, to show that a “cancer drug” might inhibit enzyme activity said to be part of some metabolic pathway. But, if that metabolic pathway has never been proven to have anything to do with cancer in the actual organism, what is the point of the experiment? Yet, this flawed method is how “cancer drugs” are developed.
But, back to TAF. Where the heck does 94% effectiveness mean? Effective at what? Again, how can “effectiveness” be measure if that alleged “effectiveness” is against something which itself has never been scientifically proven to exist?
The extent of fraud within the scientific and medical establishments is something which people can only learn of and accept at their own pace. Having been a part of the system, my own skepticism began 3 decades ago. So, I appreciate Miss Rebecca’s approach to expose these drugs from within the framework of the existing fraudulent scientific and medical paradigm.
But, for those of us who are aware of the mostly flawed assumptions of the scientific and medical machine, we can rejoice at the overall health and lifestyle benefits available once we shed fears of attacking microbes and of ubiquitous medical-created “conditions,” and, instead, live life as it was intended.