In an article almost suitable for a parody news site, the WHO is “urging all sexually active gay men to take antiretroviral drugs to reduce the spread of HIV.”
Clearly, condoms aren’t working (or perhaps there’s an insinuation that gay men of all colours are just as bad as Africans in safe sex?) for this to be suggested. And this suggestion is pretty much akin to asking people to take cancer chemotherapy just because they have a family history.
The admission that “men who have sex with men are 19 times more likely to have HIV than the general population. [according to WHO]” is glaringly at odds with people who emphasise a growing heterosexual epidemic.
There is not even particularly a gay plague, it has always been limited to a minority of a minority who indulge in highly-specific high-risk practices, or are brushed into the category for other health reasons.
Many will be familiar with the story of a baby girl miraculously having been saved from HIV infection by being provided with treatment soon after birth from a late-diagnosed mother.
It turns out that HIV has ‘re-emerged’ (how can that be if infection was never proven?) in that baby girl so lifelong treatment is undoubtedly back on the cards, even though there was no report of Aids expression, the possibility that the girl could be an ‘elite controller’ who never develops Aids, or in fact the possibility that the unreliable HIV tests may have picked up evidence of a common, passed, childhood illness (a young girl has an immune system that is still developing, so likely the innate arm will take a back seat to the adaptive arm).
The BBC has adorned its article with pictures of computerised assumptions of what HIV looks like. The doctors are stumped on why HIV re-emerged. The obvious dissident answer is whether it is common sense to follow a theory that seems to support the Christ-like resurrection of a virus whose pathogenicity has never been demonstrated.