When Weinstein's "party drug" comment was published on April 6, I was the face of an AHF-funded campaign produced by Andrew Orozco, head of the AHF subcommittee LEASH.
Today I would like to give insight into the reaction that Weinstein's "party drug" comment caused, dissolve confusion about the difference between post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), evaluate PrEP based on scientific data, describe my experience with the effect of Weinstein's leadership in the AHF today, and explain the reasoning behind the petition I launched.
Her anti-drugs comments would have weakened that case, perhaps even causing it to collapse.
During the car journey, Contostavlos allegedly made anti-drugs comments, speaking about a family member who had a drug problem.
At a pre-trial hearing at the end of last month, Mahmood denied discussing that statement with Smith, particularly whether the anti-drugs comments might undermine the case.
At the pre-trial hearing the reporter denied discussing the statement with Smith, particularly whether the driver's account of the anti-drugs comments might undermine the case.
He and Smith were arrested and charged after Mahmood gave evidence at Contostavlos's trial that appeared to concede he had talked about the anti-drugs comments with Smith and that had misled the trial judge.
But the "airbrushing" from a police statement of anti-drugs comments made by the former N-Dubz singer while she was being driven home after meeting the undercover reporter ensured the case against her collapsed.
The anti-drugs comments made by Contostavlos were "not earth-shattering" and would have done "nothing to displace the evidence from the singer's own lips" when she was secretly recorded by Mahmood, therefore he had no motive to conceal it.
But a day later, after speaking to Mahmood and emailing him his draft police statement, the singer's anti-drugs comments were removed, the court heard.
