HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

Manslaughter by PreEposure Prophylaxis

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/07/13

The HIV/AIDS Establishment — Big Pharma, NIAID, etc. etc. — is assiduously promulgating the idea that healthy individuals who engage in sex should imbibe highly toxic substances so that they will be less likely to become “HIV-positive”.

This illustrates how true believers and those with vested interests are able to bias clinical trials to deliver desired results even when much earlier data already established that the desired results cannot have been obtained honestly:  for example, several trials of tenofovir to prevent “HIV infection” managed to report that serious adverse events from tenofovir were no more common than from placebo, even as it has long been established that tenofovir causes kidney failure and other harm.

Since this illustrates general flaws in medicine and science, I posted the full analysis on my scimedskeptic blog rather than here; see When prophecy fails.

5 Responses to “Manslaughter by PreEposure Prophylaxis”

  1. David Crowe said

    There were placebo controlled trials of tenofovir?

    • Henry Bauer said

      David Crowe:
      The PrEP trials had controls who didn’t TDF, but I don’t know whether they were given dummy pills.
      I doubt that there were any TDF trials for treating HIV+, typically new antiretrovirals are tested against exisitng ones.

  2. James said

    As part of my pain treatment, one of the pain-killers I am on can cause kidney damage. As a consequence, I am not permitted to take this anti-inflammatory medicine for more than a few weeks at a time. After months off it, I’m permitted to take it again for a month or so. (This is an over-the-counter anti-inflammatory medicine).

    Now, why is it that my kidneys are so much more fragile/valuable than someone taking ARVs month-after-month prophylactically? A friend has a dog which is on this same anti-inflammatory as I take, yet the dog takes it continuously. It seems as if doctors and vets are equating the risk tolerance of dogs and people on prophylactic ARVs.

  3. Liu said

    I was on OraQuick website – the oral saliva test kit for hiv antibody in-home testing and one of the warning it gave is that if you are on antiviral treatment or preventative treatment then this test is not for you. I assume it’ll give people false negative result. Why is that the case though? Is antibody detection affected by viral load? This brings into question of using antivirals as Pre Exposure Prophylaxis – wouldn’t people testing antibody negative in the PreEp trial their testing result being affected by the antivirals (false negative)? Assuming they were using standard HIV antibody testing and not viral load test to determine whether someone is infected.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Since HIV/AIDS theory is wrong, “research” keeps coming up with things that don’t make sense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: