PrEP Propaganda?

By far the most significant development in “HIV research” in the past fifteen years — and arguably the only development — is the concept of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis or PrEP for short. PrEP has been, to the pharmaceutical companies and to AIDS activists, the logical “next step” to mitigate the alleged spread of HIV following the introduction of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP).

Both of these treatment modalities involve medicating HIV-negative individuals with drugs that were developed to treat active HIV infection. The most widely prescribed medication for both PEP and PrEP is Truvada, a nucleoside analog drug. This is the same type of medication as the infamous AZT, whose devastating side effect profile is well known. Nucleoside analog drugs have also been accurately referred to as DNA chain terminators, which basically means that they work by stopping the replication of any replicating genetic sequences of a particular type. In layman’s terms, this means that rapidly proliferating cells are killed as collateral damage in the attempt to neutralize what is believed to be a rapidly replicating virus. The concept is effectively identical to that of cancer chemotherapy, which is universally accepted as being potentially fatal — try and kill enough of the cancer without first killing the patient.

These drugs were the first approved to treat “HIV infection” and remain in use today, despite their dismal safety profile and dubious effectiveness profile. It is peculiar enough that these drugs are prescribed to HIV-antibody-positive people for life (as opposed to cancer chemotherapy which typically only lasts a short time), making it nearly impossible to discern which symptoms might actually be caused by the medication and not any pathology on the part of the patient. Where things get strange and disturbing is that it is now the recommended standard of care to prescribe these drugs to people with no hint of HIV-positivity.

PEP, if one assumes that there is some benefit to these drugs whatsoever, which is debatable, at least makes some logical sense in that it is prescribed to patients who have had a known or suspected exposure to HIV as a kind of “morning after pill” to (hopefully) prevent the development of HIV-positivity in the exposed individual. Putting aside any questions at all about HIV’s alleged lethality, if one assumes that the mainstream model of HIV and AIDS is correct (a huge and, I argue, erroneous assumption), using PEP very short term makes a certain kind of sense.

Where things get extremely strange is the relatively new concept of PrEP. Viewers of cable television are no doubt aware of the advertisements for PrEP that explicitly target African Americans, if the demographic of the commercial actors is any indication. PrEP involves, quite simply, the prescription of so-called anti-HIV drugs as HIV preventatives. These medications are not meant to be taken short term — they are meant to be taken for as long as the patient remains “at risk” of seroconversion. They are intended to be taken for a lifetime, to the great benefit of the pharmaceutical industry and to the detriment of the patient. This isn’t catastrophizing — there is currently a class-action lawsuit filed against Gilead pharmaceuticals for the harm Truvada has done to, among other things, the kidney function and bone density of 22,000 plaintiffs.

It is highly peculiar and concerning that entire communities of healthy people are being targeted to embark upon a regimen of daily, long term toxic chemotherapy in the hopes of avoiding testing positive for antibodies to an alleged retrovirus — given that clinical trials for PrEP indicate anywhere from No effectiveness at all for receptive vaginal sex, to at best a 90% reduction in “transmission.” (Statistically, this would imply that over a lifetime, PrEP is almost certain to fail at some point.)

“Anti-HIV drugs” are now being used as HIV vaccines. The propaganda is deafening — we repeatedly hear these toxic medications being hailed as “life saving drugs” and we have been hearing it for about thirty years. Repetition is powerful. For those diagnosed HIV-antibody-positive, the holy grail is to be “retained in care,” a euphemism for compliance to their medication regime.

Indeed, the entire end game here is compliance. Despite the fact that many people eligible for PrEP either choose not to take it or are unaware of its availability, the concept of prescribing a daily pill is itself not enough, with the approval of Apretude, patients have the option of taking an injection bimonthly under the care of a medical professional, a sinister move marketed for its convenience but that certainly is intended to increase compliance.

Why would this be? What is the purpose of “retaining in care” hundreds of thousands of healthy Americans, most of whom represent marginalized communities? How has the propaganda become so loud that what is on its face a completely ridiculous concept is being marketed as a glowing positive despite plenty of evidence of its potential harm? Certainly, profits for the pharmaceutical companies play a role, but I don’t think that is the main goal here.

From the beginning, gay and black Americans have been scapegoated as the drivers of the HIV epidemic in the U.S. (despite effectively no evidence that this is the case). PrEP, marketed almost exclusively to these communities (but not to health care professionals “at risk” of needlestick injuries), is an insidious way to ghettoize and to further marginalize these communities. Keep them compliant, above all. Stay in your lane; don’t ask questions; take your meds; trust the experts.

It’s a scam. It was always a scam, but the stakes are higher now as these toxic medications are coming for everybody. It is past time to get informed and for people to take responsibility for their own medical decisions and not to outsource our medical sovereignty to the pharma peddlers — some well intentioned, to be sure. “Anti-HIV drugs” are merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to “compliance.”