This is interesting. I've had a theory for a while that PrEP interferes with the immune response in a way that makes it appear to prevent infection. The fact that it causes a disappearance of 'HIV' antibodies (if I read that correctly) faster than placebo means it would appear to have a protective effect. I know 15% isn't a huge value, but if it's also affecting other antibody levels, it could give this appearance of being protective, at least on antibody tests which of course are the first line tests.
But super interesting that we now have documentation of intestinal damage.
YES!! I was literally just thinking along these exact lines - like, if PrEP appears to clear these so called monoclonal HIV associated antibodies, how does it affect the antibody test which must be taken to remain on PrEP? (Also: does PrEP seem partly like a testing scheme?)
The Perth Group documents that AZT did a similar 'trick', it altered some biochemical process that gave it the appearance of having an antiretroviral effect, but it was a kind of biochemical slight of hand. I need to go dig into their paper on AZT and find that. In fact they also put forward that other antiretrovirals simply alter genetic expression in a way that also prevents the PCR tests from measuring 'HIV' primers. It's all laboratory phenomena, smoke and mirrors.
Yes, another layer of insanity is that the underlying assumptions have never been proven.
Who says that these antibody levels (assuming they are actually real, with reliable tests) have anything to do with disease, or this specific disease (except AIDS is a bunch of diseases, not a single one) and of course no virus has ever been found in real life, much less a retrovirus, so those are all hypothetical assumptions. Antibody specificity etc is another assumption. Also, in the case of all other 'viruses,' having antibodies (from a vaccine or past infection) supposedly is a 'good' thing, but in 'HIV' it means you are infected? How many of the people who test 'positive' for this are actually sick (before the toxic chemo AZT, PReP, etc I mean... of course you will be sick after taking that stuff).
You can run around in circles 'proving' meaningless things from bizarre surrogate endpoints which have nothing to do with anything (and for that matter might be entirely fraudulent or non-existent due to the assumptions involved and the quality of the 'tests' like PCR). Dogs chasing their own tails... That's what this looks like to me, but I appreciate Rebecca digging into it constantly to expose it...
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.
Yeah, in comparison to $100/day for Biktarvy pills as prevention/treatment, an effective voodoo jab would seriously cut into the profits, especially if true that the intellectual property on Biktarvy pills is enforceable until 2036 or something like that.
However, it might be just too tricky to introduce a voodoo jab to prevent AIDS, because unlike cervical cancer (HPV jab) or shingles (chicken pox jab), it doesn't take 40 years to detect the CD4 depletion syndrome which supposedly always leads to AIDS.
Of course, an HIV vaccine makes no sense anyway insofar as the asymptomatic CD4 depletion syndrome (which supposedly always leads to AIDS) is almost always associated with the presence of antibodies to "HIV" antigens, so obviously the presence of such antibodies is not something that helps the person other than to get diagnosed as HIV+, for better or for worse.
How does one even orgsanise such clinical trials for a HIV jab? Any vaccine that induced such antibodies would mask any future 'infection' events so that nobody would be able to tell when the seroconversion occurred. Maybe the clinical trials already had all kinds of lab tricks worked out in advance so as to determine which antibodies are due to the test vaccine and which antibodies are due to a new "infection"? I guess PCR tricks can be used to test for de novo "infection" - who really knows what the Fauci kooks found out when messing around like this injecting people who are already HIV positive or HIV negative with synthetic "HIV" antigens, nobody publishes their voodoo pseudoscience results unless it can be wrapped up nicely in a bow of $$$.
This is interesting. I've had a theory for a while that PrEP interferes with the immune response in a way that makes it appear to prevent infection. The fact that it causes a disappearance of 'HIV' antibodies (if I read that correctly) faster than placebo means it would appear to have a protective effect. I know 15% isn't a huge value, but if it's also affecting other antibody levels, it could give this appearance of being protective, at least on antibody tests which of course are the first line tests.
But super interesting that we now have documentation of intestinal damage.
YES!! I was literally just thinking along these exact lines - like, if PrEP appears to clear these so called monoclonal HIV associated antibodies, how does it affect the antibody test which must be taken to remain on PrEP? (Also: does PrEP seem partly like a testing scheme?)
The Perth Group documents that AZT did a similar 'trick', it altered some biochemical process that gave it the appearance of having an antiretroviral effect, but it was a kind of biochemical slight of hand. I need to go dig into their paper on AZT and find that. In fact they also put forward that other antiretrovirals simply alter genetic expression in a way that also prevents the PCR tests from measuring 'HIV' primers. It's all laboratory phenomena, smoke and mirrors.
Yeah and now they’re even doing all their “experiments” via computer models. It’s totally insane.
Yes, another layer of insanity is that the underlying assumptions have never been proven.
Who says that these antibody levels (assuming they are actually real, with reliable tests) have anything to do with disease, or this specific disease (except AIDS is a bunch of diseases, not a single one) and of course no virus has ever been found in real life, much less a retrovirus, so those are all hypothetical assumptions. Antibody specificity etc is another assumption. Also, in the case of all other 'viruses,' having antibodies (from a vaccine or past infection) supposedly is a 'good' thing, but in 'HIV' it means you are infected? How many of the people who test 'positive' for this are actually sick (before the toxic chemo AZT, PReP, etc I mean... of course you will be sick after taking that stuff).
You can run around in circles 'proving' meaningless things from bizarre surrogate endpoints which have nothing to do with anything (and for that matter might be entirely fraudulent or non-existent due to the assumptions involved and the quality of the 'tests' like PCR). Dogs chasing their own tails... That's what this looks like to me, but I appreciate Rebecca digging into it constantly to expose it...
Yep I read that too; the PCR primers no longer recognise the RNA (produced by the body under stress) that they're looking for because the highly oxidising AZT has altered them. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-intellectual-freedom
They're too lazy to inject "mengeleRNA with lipid nanoparticles"?
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.
Huh! Good eye!
Yeah, in comparison to $100/day for Biktarvy pills as prevention/treatment, an effective voodoo jab would seriously cut into the profits, especially if true that the intellectual property on Biktarvy pills is enforceable until 2036 or something like that.
However, it might be just too tricky to introduce a voodoo jab to prevent AIDS, because unlike cervical cancer (HPV jab) or shingles (chicken pox jab), it doesn't take 40 years to detect the CD4 depletion syndrome which supposedly always leads to AIDS.
Of course, an HIV vaccine makes no sense anyway insofar as the asymptomatic CD4 depletion syndrome (which supposedly always leads to AIDS) is almost always associated with the presence of antibodies to "HIV" antigens, so obviously the presence of such antibodies is not something that helps the person other than to get diagnosed as HIV+, for better or for worse.
How does one even orgsanise such clinical trials for a HIV jab? Any vaccine that induced such antibodies would mask any future 'infection' events so that nobody would be able to tell when the seroconversion occurred. Maybe the clinical trials already had all kinds of lab tricks worked out in advance so as to determine which antibodies are due to the test vaccine and which antibodies are due to a new "infection"? I guess PCR tricks can be used to test for de novo "infection" - who really knows what the Fauci kooks found out when messing around like this injecting people who are already HIV positive or HIV negative with synthetic "HIV" antigens, nobody publishes their voodoo pseudoscience results unless it can be wrapped up nicely in a bow of $$$.
microbiome microbiome microbiome for health!
Also avoid monoclonals for anything https://jowaller.substack.com/p/treatment-with-monclonal-antibodies
🙏🏽