Masks making a comeback

So the rethinking aids website is what you are referring to? We are all laymen here and don't understand fully why some medications work for some people and not others. You have people on there that are on the board that really don't know anymore than we do, yet their word is gold. You have a gynecologist on the board, a professor of American history, a doctor from Germany whom you linked that paper he wrote, a professor of philosophy and classics, a television producer, an investor and a guy with his MBA from Harvard.


I don't see one epidemiologist or anyone who would have worked directly with HIV patients, so that gives me pause. It's also interesting that most of the people on that are from Africa where it is running rampant. Appears too one sided. If there were any credence to all of this, some credible research facilities would be on board and we could find it on the internet.

Speaking of the internet, here are a couple links for you. I hope you read them, I did.

The Story Behind the First AIDS Drug, Approved 30 Years Ago

To address the one person there who has lived with HIV for years:

Long-Term Survivors of HIV.

 

Think: what incentive would an epidemiologist have, for questioning virology, unless he was already spoiling to get into another industry ?

And if you’re picky about sources, how about the damning testimony of the “co-discoverer” of HIV ? And the other discover was found to be a fraud.

But you’re hitting on a key confounder, the radical difference in the character of AIDS in the US as compared to Africa.

Did you read my “Rise and Fall of AZT” ?

 

Yeah, I did.

Have you read my two links I just posted?

 

Yes, #1 reiterated my “Rise and Fall of AZT.” In short, sketchy trials, made people sick, increasing ineffective at stemming virus levels, bogus concept given that there is no HIV virus to stem.

#2 surmise that people with HIV (again, no such thing) are living longer because they are taking drugs that are less deadly.

 

#1 does talk about why the first trials were very imperfect, but a large part was because the participants didn't want to miss out on the actual drug, if possibly they were taking the placebo. They got together and mixed up the pills. There was a huge amount of pressure to get it out to the public so the FDA had no choice. No conspiracy.

#2 states flatley that people do survive without taking the drugs, but they are very very rare exceptions. Just like women not taking chemo when recommended. You take a big chance.

Ya didn't' read enough my friend.

 

(1) is a condensed version of my “rise and fall” of AZT.

(2) then since there is no HIV virus, what are people dying of without drugs ? In the US, the hardest hit demographic, urban homosexuals, certainly weren’t dying from any virus. And they certainly died from chemo in a pill.

 

I can't intelligently discuss with someone who doesn't pay attention. SMH.

Have a great week. I tried.

 

I think it’s more like you’re frustrated that I won’t agree with you that drugs are good. Drugs are bad, m’kay ?

 

You realize Cochrane had to release a follow-up statement because people like you misinterpreted the study?

Statement on 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' review

 

The robotic impulse is slowly re-emerging. I see people wearing face diapers outside.

 

LOL, that "follow-up" statement isn't from the author of the study. Let me know when the authors pull the study. Sorry the study proves you and the other maskers look incredibly foolish. Tough one to swallow after 3 years I bet.

 

Like vaccine efficacy, mask efficacy is another completely meaningless concept.

The debate is a complete waste of time.

On the other hand, like vaccine harms, mask harms is deserving of exploration.