This is a good example why people don't question this paradigm, because most people see gobbledygook articles like this and just say, 'well, this is expert scientists who know what they're doing'. This is akin to how the mainstream media has been propping up Biden despite what some people have been saying about him for quite a while.
"About 40% reported prior pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use, and 20% reported PrEP use in the past 10 days. Those who reported PrEP use had a lower baseline viral load but not a smaller viral reservoir."
Yeah, this definitely caught my attention too. So PrEP 'protects' someone from viral load but not viral reservoir, LOOOOL.
Another thing dawns on me regarding this clip: "About 40% reported prior pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use, and 20% reported PrEP use in the past 10 days. Those who reported PrEP use had a lower baseline viral load but not a smaller viral reservoir."
We've speculated that PrEP is simply masking the signals that are read as positive detection of 'HIV', but apparently it's not masking 'viral reservoir'. The vast number of people doing standard testing aren't testing for this supposed reservoir.
My only point of disagreement might be use of the word "near" in the statement, "The research into this “virus” has become abstracted to the point of near total uselessness." And, no folks, it's not criticism, it's a joke.
Thank you, each point in your critique is well-taken, especially with regard to assumptions about infection, genome integration, modeling and anthropomorphic fallacies.
Thank you, Rebecca, for reading that whole article so we don't have to! I'm puzzled by the cute, no doubt copyrighted cartoon of a T-Cell with "HIV" inside it. Is the "HIV" represented by the two squiggly lines (number "2"-shaped) in the center? If so, it's really not very much. Or by the little yellow circles that form a larger circle? There are at least more of them. Since the article seems to have no meaningful content, at least one can appreciate the design and color scheme of the cartoon, meaningless as it, too, is.
How long are you going to keep writing about this stupid problem that is not even a problem, Rebecca? The problem they are referring to is not an illness people are suffering from but the problem with the results of diagnostic tests. They never look at the symptoms. Because they have no symptoms. And they are referred to as asymptomatic cases of HIV/AIDS. Give me a break!
I’ll keep writing about it until the paradigm falls in the broader community. I’ll keep writing about it until the Truvada victims get the justice they deserve. Those are who I’m writing for.
This is a good example why people don't question this paradigm, because most people see gobbledygook articles like this and just say, 'well, this is expert scientists who know what they're doing'. This is akin to how the mainstream media has been propping up Biden despite what some people have been saying about him for quite a while.
"About 40% reported prior pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use, and 20% reported PrEP use in the past 10 days. Those who reported PrEP use had a lower baseline viral load but not a smaller viral reservoir."
Yeah, this definitely caught my attention too. So PrEP 'protects' someone from viral load but not viral reservoir, LOOOOL.
Another thing dawns on me regarding this clip: "About 40% reported prior pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use, and 20% reported PrEP use in the past 10 days. Those who reported PrEP use had a lower baseline viral load but not a smaller viral reservoir."
We've speculated that PrEP is simply masking the signals that are read as positive detection of 'HIV', but apparently it's not masking 'viral reservoir'. The vast number of people doing standard testing aren't testing for this supposed reservoir.
Ha, that article is a viral load, alright.
My only point of disagreement might be use of the word "near" in the statement, "The research into this “virus” has become abstracted to the point of near total uselessness." And, no folks, it's not criticism, it's a joke.
Yep ;)
Thank you, each point in your critique is well-taken, especially with regard to assumptions about infection, genome integration, modeling and anthropomorphic fallacies.
Thank you, Rebecca, for reading that whole article so we don't have to! I'm puzzled by the cute, no doubt copyrighted cartoon of a T-Cell with "HIV" inside it. Is the "HIV" represented by the two squiggly lines (number "2"-shaped) in the center? If so, it's really not very much. Or by the little yellow circles that form a larger circle? There are at least more of them. Since the article seems to have no meaningful content, at least one can appreciate the design and color scheme of the cartoon, meaningless as it, too, is.
Sounds like yet another attempt to obfuscate the truth about ‘hiv’ with more ‘scientific language’
How long are you going to keep writing about this stupid problem that is not even a problem, Rebecca? The problem they are referring to is not an illness people are suffering from but the problem with the results of diagnostic tests. They never look at the symptoms. Because they have no symptoms. And they are referred to as asymptomatic cases of HIV/AIDS. Give me a break!
I’ll keep writing about it until the paradigm falls in the broader community. I’ll keep writing about it until the Truvada victims get the justice they deserve. Those are who I’m writing for.