How many don’t take their antiretroviral drugs?
After I had commented on the decrease in “HIV” in Washington, DC, that had been described in the media as an alarming increase [STOP PRESS: 40% DECREASE in HIV in Washington DC, 18 March 2009], I received from Dr. Stephen S. Elgin, MD, a clipping from the Washington Times (Christopher A. Keys, “The need for electronic records”, 14 April 2009) containing this fascinating item:
“In any given month, about 40 percent of the approximately 1,900 clients actively enrolled in the D.C. AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) are not utilizing antiretroviral medications. . . . [although] almost all of these ‘nonutilizers’ have active prescriptions for antiretroviral drugs written by their physicians, nurse practitioners or physician’s assistants. . . . ADAP programs across the country report similar rates of ‘nonutilizers’ (about 40 percent).”
A reasonable inference is that a considerable proportion of those who are placed on antiretroviral drugs have similar experiences of being unable to tolerate the drugs’ toxicities as, for example, Onnie Mary Phuthe, Karri Stokely, or Maria Papagiannidou.
Official: Antiretrovirals maybe not the best treatment
“Updated HIV guidelines emphasise primary care need of patients”
“While improvements in antiretroviral therapy have improved the prognosis for many HIV patients, data from recent studies suggest those living with HIV are at higher risk for developing common health problems, such as heart disease, diabetes or cancer”
— but those are not “common” for adults in prime middle age, which is the age at which HAART-treated individuals are dying from heart failure, kidney failure, liver failure, and certain cancers [“AIDS” deaths: owing to antiretroviral drugs or to lack of antiretroviral treatment?, 2 October 2008; NIH Treatment Guidelines, 3 November 2008].
“Baseline urinalysis and calculated creatinine clearance should be considered, especially in black patients, because of an increased risk of HIV-associated nephropathy”
— “HIV-associated nephropathy” is actually iatrogenic, drug-induced nephropathy occurring in “HIV-positive” people who are on HAART; which is admitted, but only indirectly:
“Urinalysis and calculated creatinine clearance should also be performed prior to initiating treatment with drugs such as tenofovir or indinavir, which have the potential for nephrotoxicity”
— “potential” for nephrotoxicity sounds much less alarming than a straightforward description as nephrotoxic.
“Emphasis should be placed on the importance of adherence to care rather than focusing solely on adherence to medications”
— because HAART itself can cause a variety of ailments.
There will never be epidemics of heterosexually transmitted “HIV” outside Africa, according to the head of the HIV/AIDS Division of the World Health Organization [WHO SAYS that WE’VE BEEN VERY WRONG about HIV and AIDS? (Clue: WHO = World Health Organization), 10 June 2008]. But of course that is no reason why UNAIDS should cease fearmongering over those imaginary epidemics, which have the added implausible feature that the greatest risk of acquiring “HIV” is through getting married [Abstinence-based HIV programs in Africa may put married women at risk, 25 September 2008; B***S*** about HIV from ACADEME via THE PRESS, 4 March 2008; HIV/AIDS ABSURDITIES AND WORSE, 9 DECEMBER 2007; TO AVOID HIV INFECTION, DON’T GET MARRIED, 18 November 2007]:
“In Cambodia, India and Thailand, the largest number of new HIV infections occur among married women, the study showed”. That’s from a UNAIDS report released in Bali at the 9th International Congress on AIDS in Asia and the Pacific.
Here’s the “reasoning”:
“50 million women in Asia are either married or in long-term relationships with men who engage in high-risk sexual behaviours and are at risk of being infected with HIV from their partners. . . . Men who buy sex constitute the largest infected population group and most of them are either married or will get married . . . . ‘This puts a significant number of women, often perceived as “low-risk” because they only have sex with their husbands or long-term partners, at risk of HIV infection’. . . . UNAIDS estimated over 90 per cent of the 1.7 million women living with HIV in Asia became infected from their husbands or partners while in long-term relationships.”
But those “risk factors” are nothing new, yet more than two decades of “HIV/AIDS” have not resulted in any Asian epidemics. UNAIDS is speculating and making predictions that have already been disproved by the facts.
More marriage and “HIV” risk….
Since the greatest risk of being “HIV-positive” occurs among married women in Africa and Asia, it’s logical (HIV/AIDS logical) that “Nigeria agency pushes marriage to control HIV spread” .
That’s actually not as absurd as it may seem, for “Both bride and groom are HIV-positive and marrying with the support of a local government program that encourages such ‘HIV-marriages’ in the hope of preventing the virus from spreading”.
Of course that’s a forlorn hope, because we know from James Chin, former epidemiologist for the World Health Organization, that the reason why “HIV” has spread so much in Africa is that 20-40% of the adult population — including, obviously, a lot of married people — is continually engaged in multiple concurrent sexual relationships with constant changing of partners (The AIDS Pandemic).
If married people are NOT so engaged, then the UNAIDS-certified African epidemic could not have happened. If married people ARE so engaged, then this new initiative is nonsense.
Not the first time that left and right hands of “HIV/AIDS” don’t jibe.
Prisons are hotbeds of men having sex with men and spreading “HIV”
Everyone knows that, even though the facts are otherwise [Recent HIV/AIDS tidbits in the “news”, 6 April 2009; AIDS activists spout b***s***; media pass it on, 3 April 2009; “HIV” IN PRISONS: REGULAR AS CLOCKWORK, 2 May 2008].
So the experience in Alabama prisons won’t change “what everyone knows” and what HIV/AIDS spokespeople will continue to blather about:
“in Alabama in-prison transmission is all but non-existent . . . . HIV is, of course, a serious health concern” [“Prisons' HIV decision shows progress”]
— and no one would dare mention the lack of spread in prisons publicly without paying obeisance to this belief about a serious health concern.
“However, as has gradually become widely understood, it [“HIV”] is not easily transmitted”
— gradually understood, that is, by officialdom; AIDS Rethinkers and HIV Skeptics knew it all along.
“Given that, the rules barring HIV-positive inmates from work-release programs ceased to make sense”
— but it’s probably asking too much to have all such senseless rules abandoned; say, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” . . . .
“As of last week, [Prison Commissioner Richard] Allen said, two of the 17 female HIV-positive inmates at Tutwiler Prison have passed the classification requirements, as have 47 of the 252 men in the HIV ward at Limestone Prison. ‘I don’t see it as a big deal,’ Allen said. . . . But it is a big deal . . . . By recognizing the medical realities of HIV and adjusting its policies accordingly, the department is making a significant statement.”
— a significant statement whose implications the HIV/AIDS bandwagon will continue to ignore assiduously.
“CDC recommends mandatory HIV testing…without consent
In an effort to slow the spread of HIV, the CDC is recommending mandatory testing of emergency room patients without their consent”.
— which is GUARANTEED to result in some alarming statistics about the occult spread of “HIV” and the unexpectedly large proportion of people who are infected without knowing it, because from the very earliest days of sentinel surveying, it has been abundantly clear that emergency-room patients and people who have just died tend to test “HIV-positive” at very high rates [see sources cited at pp. 48 and 85 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory].