Wow, this is probably the most amazing post yet. I've been suspecting for a long time that PrEP is doing nothing more than interfering with signals the body puts out that are interpreted as being 'HIV'. That's all these drugs do, they mask a signal.
"In the study, a single positive viral load test was frequently found to be a false positive result. However, a second viral load test with a new blood sample was able to distinguish true positive results from false positive"
People that have studied the work of the Perth Group know that using a serial testing scheme to determine 'true' vs 'false' signal is about the worst scientific practice out there. They assume that if they see two sequential positives, vs just one, that it's a true positive? That's just mind-bending. But consider this, most doctors are going to see one 'positive' viral load, put someone on ARV's, and then consider it proof of effectiveness the next time they see the next 'viral load' test be 'undetectable', when in all likelihood it would have been so in and of itself, without interference. Everything about the 'HIV' theory of AIDS is self-fulfilling.
"This recommendation was made because CAB-LA can keep HIV antibodies at such low levels following acquisition that they might not be detected on an antibody-based test."
And yes, this is the heart of the situation. They're admitting that PrEP interferes with the humoral arm of the immune system. I think this is what's happening not just with this new drug but is what's happening with Truvada and Descovy and I've suspected this for a long time.
These researchers are essentially trying to just make sense of a non-sensical situation and it's kind of amusing watching them jump through these mental hoops.
This guy documents quite clearly tells the stories of leading scientists who got caught falsifying data, publishing bogus papers, and doing this even though their papers were 'peer reviewed'. One scientist even had the medical system switch to a chemical he claimed to have showed improved blood parameters after surgery. But it turns out because of his fake data, that this change actually increased the risk of death in people who were treated with it.
I couldn't help but think of Gallo's original HIV papers and his scientific fraud, which was softened to misconduct.
Yeah, this is actually a potentially quite serious situation. I think antibodies are part of the 'junk removal' detoxification mechanism in the body. You interfere with taking out the trash and you end up with problems down the road.
As far as I can tell an antibody test give false positives. They know this. Instead of saying this, they do what they always do. Bend the truth.
They suggest they are being diligent in offering the viral load test. Infact they do so to increase the efficacy rating of the drug cocktail they hope to poison the gullible.
Rebecca, when I first read this I thought wow, this really is one of the most concise and hard hitting ones you've written. This one article "case study" covers the whole phenomenon. Just a little editing would let this stand alone near the top of list of your "read these articles for a crash course" lineup.
"just a short piece" , sure... "brevity is the mother of invention", to bend some cliches...
What is the answer to the math equation 5*(20,45,35,67,52)=x? I'm guessing a mathematician would say it has no answer because one of the terms is not specific.
For anyone familiar with the scientific method and with experimental design, the "science" involved in these so-called antibody tests appears as that equation might appear to a mathematician.
Interestingly, having spent 5 years in assay design (and the antibody test is an assay) in Big Pharma, none of these unvalidated assays would ever have been accepted.
And they are unvalidated, because like the math equation, the assay contains an undefined or unspecific term, in this case, the virus. As such, there can be neither a positive result nor a negative result because there is no validated assay.
If I were to state that the viral load depends on the answer I supply to that original math equation, I would expect to get an argument as that equation had no answer, therefore, no viral load number could be determined from that non-answer.
OK, I think the point has been made if not beaten senseless. Thank you for your attention (for you older folks who remember that commercial.)
In other words, you get a test that comes up positive because PrEP doesn't work, and they presume because you're taking PrEP, it must be a false positive, so they take the test again until they get the result they want, but if you are not taking PrEP and get a positive test, they assume the test is a true positive because you weren't taking PrEP....the logical nonsense is astounding.
Wow, this is probably the most amazing post yet. I've been suspecting for a long time that PrEP is doing nothing more than interfering with signals the body puts out that are interpreted as being 'HIV'. That's all these drugs do, they mask a signal.
"In the study, a single positive viral load test was frequently found to be a false positive result. However, a second viral load test with a new blood sample was able to distinguish true positive results from false positive"
People that have studied the work of the Perth Group know that using a serial testing scheme to determine 'true' vs 'false' signal is about the worst scientific practice out there. They assume that if they see two sequential positives, vs just one, that it's a true positive? That's just mind-bending. But consider this, most doctors are going to see one 'positive' viral load, put someone on ARV's, and then consider it proof of effectiveness the next time they see the next 'viral load' test be 'undetectable', when in all likelihood it would have been so in and of itself, without interference. Everything about the 'HIV' theory of AIDS is self-fulfilling.
"This recommendation was made because CAB-LA can keep HIV antibodies at such low levels following acquisition that they might not be detected on an antibody-based test."
And yes, this is the heart of the situation. They're admitting that PrEP interferes with the humoral arm of the immune system. I think this is what's happening not just with this new drug but is what's happening with Truvada and Descovy and I've suspected this for a long time.
These researchers are essentially trying to just make sense of a non-sensical situation and it's kind of amusing watching them jump through these mental hoops.
Also if these drugs are interfering with the humoral arm of the immune system what problems might arise in the future?
By the way, I recently stumbled into an excellent youtube channel dealing with scientific fraud.
https://www.youtube.com/@PeteJudo1/videos
This guy documents quite clearly tells the stories of leading scientists who got caught falsifying data, publishing bogus papers, and doing this even though their papers were 'peer reviewed'. One scientist even had the medical system switch to a chemical he claimed to have showed improved blood parameters after surgery. But it turns out because of his fake data, that this change actually increased the risk of death in people who were treated with it.
I couldn't help but think of Gallo's original HIV papers and his scientific fraud, which was softened to misconduct.
Yeah, this is actually a potentially quite serious situation. I think antibodies are part of the 'junk removal' detoxification mechanism in the body. You interfere with taking out the trash and you end up with problems down the road.
This little piece out of NIH is quite literally a smoking gun.
As far as I can tell an antibody test give false positives. They know this. Instead of saying this, they do what they always do. Bend the truth.
They suggest they are being diligent in offering the viral load test. Infact they do so to increase the efficacy rating of the drug cocktail they hope to poison the gullible.
Rebecca, when I first read this I thought wow, this really is one of the most concise and hard hitting ones you've written. This one article "case study" covers the whole phenomenon. Just a little editing would let this stand alone near the top of list of your "read these articles for a crash course" lineup.
"just a short piece" , sure... "brevity is the mother of invention", to bend some cliches...
What is the answer to the math equation 5*(20,45,35,67,52)=x? I'm guessing a mathematician would say it has no answer because one of the terms is not specific.
For anyone familiar with the scientific method and with experimental design, the "science" involved in these so-called antibody tests appears as that equation might appear to a mathematician.
Interestingly, having spent 5 years in assay design (and the antibody test is an assay) in Big Pharma, none of these unvalidated assays would ever have been accepted.
And they are unvalidated, because like the math equation, the assay contains an undefined or unspecific term, in this case, the virus. As such, there can be neither a positive result nor a negative result because there is no validated assay.
If I were to state that the viral load depends on the answer I supply to that original math equation, I would expect to get an argument as that equation had no answer, therefore, no viral load number could be determined from that non-answer.
OK, I think the point has been made if not beaten senseless. Thank you for your attention (for you older folks who remember that commercial.)
Thank you for caring to investigate this. Your findings are always eye opening to the darkness of Pharma and how they manipulate the innocent public.
Exactly: what are these drugs actually doing to people's bodies?
In other words, you get a test that comes up positive because PrEP doesn't work, and they presume because you're taking PrEP, it must be a false positive, so they take the test again until they get the result they want, but if you are not taking PrEP and get a positive test, they assume the test is a true positive because you weren't taking PrEP....the logical nonsense is astounding.
Anyone else have a hunch that the Covid vaccines boost HIV false positives, like the flu vaccine does?