Check my new post over at the IRF blog.
On a side note, many apologies for the apparent abandonment of this blog. But it is still active, though it may continue to be updated only sporadically for the time being.
‘Scotland will become the first place in the UK to routinely offer Prep to eligible patients. … [Scottish Medicine Consortium]’s decision relates to its use on a preventative basis by people who do not have the virus.’ BBC News.
Had the SMC studied The Penrose Inquiry and pondered why more dried-blood-product haemophiliacs acquired HIV-positivity than those who had wet blood transfusions, the green light on nationally-funded poison would have been averted.
Not only is the HIV theory of AIDS a colossal mistake, now NHS England is being forced to pay for treatment (PrEP) at the expense of treatments for 9 other conditions.
If HIV theory were true it would undoubtedly be more cost-effective to fund a new safer sex campaign, but as it’s not (the likely reason for the ‘failure’ of previous safe sex campaigns) it’s money down the toilet when the unique myriad causes of AIDS could be treated more precisely, cheaply, more safely and often not permanently.
A recent meta-analysis (simply, a study of studies) shows that medicinal contraceptives are not associated with an increased risk of HIV infection, which is bizarre because only barrier contraceptives, such as condoms, decrease the risk of contracting STDs.
However, one preparation, the infamous Depo-Provera, is associated with increased risk of infection. Now, either the other preparations help prevent infection/inflammation as a side effect (not hard to believe as, modestly, the pill appears to increase the immunomodulator, vitamin D) or Depo-Provera is causing people to test HIV+ itself. Or it could be both.
In any case, this is quite embarrassing for the orthodoxy. They will perhaps conclude that Depo-Provera lowers immunity which increases likelihood of HIV infection, but lowered immunity before infection suggests AID(S) before HIV. And if the other solutions raise immunity they solve AID(S) and therefore HIV-positivity is unlikely.
It’s much simpler to think of Depo-Provera as a direct health threat anything else.
The Mirror has reported on a Chinese man who tested HIV-positive in 2004 but negative in 2012 following hospitalisation (presumably as a result of the “strong doses of antiretroviral drugs”).
The man, Shoufa, believed he may have been infected from giving blood in 1992, which is a very unlikely scenario. And if he tested positive twelve years later one would have thought he would have untreatable AIDS at that point.
The story seems to have surfaced this year as an investigation is now underway on both of his blood samples.
How many people are ‘fortunate’ to get another HIV test despite suffering from what could be called AIDS?