I think you make a good point here. I think you can also factor in wide variations in reporting (of confirmed cases and deaths) and also climate - it is possible that a respiratory illness such as CV19 will have less imapct hot, wet countries than it will in cold wet countries. Hence the annual winter increase in influenza in the UK. My point here is that we cannot say that Ivermectin isn't responsible for reducing cases in countries such as India. But we need to be very cautious about saying that it is. It's the old distinction between correlation and causation. In the UK sales of ice-cream increase every summer and, at exactly the same time, we see a sudden spike in the number of drownings. But it would be wrong to conclude from these well documented facts that people were drowning because they were eating too much ice-cream.
You could also look at population density , even it hot arid countries, as a driver to transmission, many poorer countries have a dozen or more people living in a dwelling not much bigger than a large garage.
I was always under the impression that it wasnt cold winters that drove flu outbreaks but people spending more time indoors in close proximity ?
The fact is , in some situations , certain countries just never really got hit by covid very hard, the PNG example being one, also even in very tight lockdowns people still got covid, yet no flu of any description last year, despite a yearly average death toll of around 15000 for flu ?
This is merely a statement, not a challenge to your assertation.
The ice cream analogy is , like your 'people eat rice in India..' one , a bit silly .
We could say it gets hot in summer , so people die of heatstroke sometimes, did the sun make them die ?
Or, it gets hot in summer , some peopleeat ice cream and then go swimming and drown , did the heat kill them, the ice cream , or did the water drown them ?
Its fairly obvious the ice cream didnt kill them , unless the lactose intolerant have the mother of all reactions ?
I wont go over the old ground again , but 'something' bought infections and deaths down in Uttar Pradesh, and if it wasnt ivermectin , what could it have been ?
Dalua , in his wisdom , decided it wasnt ivermectin , because peer reviewed studies said it wasnt,,,,,
Don't have an answer for that one. Imagine what a boost it would be to the reputation of a research facility (and what a boost it would give to its funding streams) if it could demonstrate through peer-reviewed double-blind RCT's that a readily available out-of-patent, widely recognised and cheaply available existing drug was effective against CV19. It would be a remarkable achievement. I suspect that the reason this happened is that those who could conduct this research don't believe it lead to this result.
Read that back to yourself a few times, there are lots of interesting points in there .
Reputation.
This could work both ways , if they could prove 'one way or another' that its beneficial , or not, surely thats kudos ?
Funding.
As above , a decent study brings experience , and the possibility of future work , funding , and kudos.
One of the inventors of ivermectin even offered his uni and services to do it , and was turned down, as Ive said before, these dtudies cant possibly cost that much surely, and if its so important that we DONT take horse wormer , why dont they do these studies en masse , and put the matter to bed , instead of just TELLING people not to do it ?
Bias.
You close this statement with ' I suspect that the reason this happened is that those who could conduct this research don't believe it lead to this result'
But yet hundreds millions of people were treated with 'wormer' and continue to be , why ?
If those in academia 'know' it doesnt work , why would they continue to treat , why are they now talking about doing studies, again presumably ?
This is one point on which we do disagree. You (unvaccinated) and I (vaccinated) can both transmit the virus to others. And in fact if we both catch the virus we are equally likely to pass it on to someone else. (This isn't quite true - I might be slightly less likely to pass it on but, overall, the risk we pose to other people is we have both caught the virus is virtually equivalent). But - and this, for me, is the point - although as a vaccinated person I can still catch the virus (and I should know!) I am significantly less likely to catch it than you are as an unvaccinated person. I (vaccinated) can still catch it but you (unvaccinated) are more likely to catch it. And you can only pass on a virus if you catch it. So my reduced chances of catching it, reduce my chances of passing it on to other people.
Another interesting point , I think we can safely say that vaccine efficacy is not what it was touted to be, theoretically , the population could be 100% jabbed , and yet the disease could still continue to move around among us , indeed , making us ill , and in some cases hospitalising and killing us, is this because of the unvaccinated ? I dont believe it is.
Also what of those who have had actual covid , pre or post jab, where are the figures that show their re infection rate ?
Agree. 100%. I will be first in line protesting against a compulsory vaccination programme.
If you work in the NHS thats exactly what you now have , unless you wish to throw your career in the bin ?
