| I Have to ask. 11:57 - Jan 5 with 6944 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Why is our Government, NICE & the NHS allowing people to suffer the symptoms of COVID, hospitalisation, intensive care and death?
What advise do those bodies provide for reducing the effects of COVID?
When people get a positive Test result what advise are they given?
The answer to those last two questions is NOTHING.
Stay at home until your symptoms become serious or you get better is their only answer, which is no answer.
The mantra of those bodies is "the only way out is lockdowns and vaccines".
While the rest of the world outside the UK, USA & Western Europe are successfully using various drugs to improve people's chances of not getting COVID, not suffering so badly, not ending up in hospital and not dying.
The drugs are cheap, well understood, been in use for years and work.
Even Long COVID has been cured in many patients.
Where are the banner headlines for all this good news in the UK?
Ask yourself this "if you catch COVID would you want to be able to try the drugs under medical advise before you are ill enough to be hospitalised, would you take them?
Would you like to at least to have that option?
Then ask why you are not being given the same options as 3rd world countries offer their patients?
|  | | |  |
| I Have to ask. on 21:07 - Jan 6 with 1325 views | Scotia |
I'm clueless but you can't even reply to most of my posts?
They deserve every penny because there is no alternative. Yet.
Who made money out of the most successful drug in use so far? Who has made money out of not needing ventilators? What is the point of the recovery trial if this was about money? If it was about money why wouldn't oxford /AZ charge at least as much as Pfizer for their jab? What is the point of COVAX?
So a handful of immunologists attempting to make money have managed to undermine and silence the entire scientific and medical community the world over, In the UK, the USA, Russia and China?
Once again you've started a thread but contributed nothing but easily refuted non science. Heck, you even posted a daily mail report about ONE woman who felt better to justify your position.
Your bonkers views on climate can be funny, but this is just dangerous and deluded nonsense. | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 21:40 - Jan 6 with 1313 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| I Have to ask. on 21:07 - Jan 6 by Scotia |
I'm clueless but you can't even reply to most of my posts?
They deserve every penny because there is no alternative. Yet.
Who made money out of the most successful drug in use so far? Who has made money out of not needing ventilators? What is the point of the recovery trial if this was about money? If it was about money why wouldn't oxford /AZ charge at least as much as Pfizer for their jab? What is the point of COVAX?
So a handful of immunologists attempting to make money have managed to undermine and silence the entire scientific and medical community the world over, In the UK, the USA, Russia and China?
Once again you've started a thread but contributed nothing but easily refuted non science. Heck, you even posted a daily mail report about ONE woman who felt better to justify your position.
Your bonkers views on climate can be funny, but this is just dangerous and deluded nonsense. |
I point out that there is an alternative until everybody is vaccinated and you decide to disbelieve 158 and 17 peer reviewed papers and you talk about following the science.
Yeah right.
You would rather let people die than have the NHS try every known drug that makes a difference however large or small because of your bias.
OK I get you. | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 21:59 - Jan 6 with 1307 views | Scotia |
| I Have to ask. on 21:40 - Jan 6 by A_Fans_Dad |
I point out that there is an alternative until everybody is vaccinated and you decide to disbelieve 158 and 17 peer reviewed papers and you talk about following the science.
Yeah right.
You would rather let people die than have the NHS try every known drug that makes a difference however large or small because of your bias.
OK I get you. |
Again. Not addressed a single point I raised.
I read the peer reviewed paper you posted which expressed its own limitations. HCQ is an absolute non starter, as you've posted before. Several times.
We've been looking for an alternative to a vaccine since day one, within the recovery trial in the UK and elsewhere in the world.
If there was a drug proven to stop people dying we would be using it. Whether that's the NHS or any other good health system in the world. Nobody is using one, except for dexamethosone, because there isn't one.
I can't be bothered with you anymore, you're a naive fool. | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 22:07 - Jan 6 with 1303 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| I Have to ask. on 21:59 - Jan 6 by Scotia |
Again. Not addressed a single point I raised.
I read the peer reviewed paper you posted which expressed its own limitations. HCQ is an absolute non starter, as you've posted before. Several times.
We've been looking for an alternative to a vaccine since day one, within the recovery trial in the UK and elsewhere in the world.
If there was a drug proven to stop people dying we would be using it. Whether that's the NHS or any other good health system in the world. Nobody is using one, except for dexamethosone, because there isn't one.
I can't be bothered with you anymore, you're a naive fool. |
Me naive, only you could say that after what you have posted.
You keep quoting the worst Clinical trial of modern times to dispute HCQ working.
The Recovery trial used HCQ on it's own instead of with Zinc as recommended by just about every doctor.
They gave critically ill patients 6 times the recommended Maximum dose and you use it to say HCQ doesn't work.
And you can't see anything wrong with it.
158 peer reviewed papers say you are wrong, 1 crappy almost illegal study is your only counter argument.
It says it all about your ethics. | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 07:11 - Jan 7 with 1272 views | Scotia |
| I Have to ask. on 22:07 - Jan 6 by A_Fans_Dad |
Me naive, only you could say that after what you have posted.
You keep quoting the worst Clinical trial of modern times to dispute HCQ working.
The Recovery trial used HCQ on it's own instead of with Zinc as recommended by just about every doctor.
They gave critically ill patients 6 times the recommended Maximum dose and you use it to say HCQ doesn't work.
And you can't see anything wrong with it.
158 peer reviewed papers say you are wrong, 1 crappy almost illegal study is your only counter argument.
It says it all about your ethics. |
Yes naive, gullible and dangerous.
Again, not a point addressed. | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 10:47 - Jan 7 with 1252 views | onehunglow |
If I get this virus ,I would probably die.
If I get the vaccine I could well not get it.
That seems to me a pretty good option to take.
I can see class/wealth envy popping its head into everything of late.
We are being killed by jealousy | |
| |
| I Have to ask. on 11:33 - Jan 7 with 1243 views | Catullus |
| I Have to ask. on 10:47 - Jan 7 by onehunglow |
If I get this virus ,I would probably die.
If I get the vaccine I could well not get it.
That seems to me a pretty good option to take.
I can see class/wealth envy popping its head into everything of late.
We are being killed by jealousy |
Jealousy, selfishness, stupidity.......I expect there's other reasons too. Yep, greed.
AFD, if these drugs actually work why are mainstream medical providers not shouting from rooftops about them?
Now this peer reviewed thing,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p
https://www.sciencemag.org/new
https://journals.plos.org/plos
https://www.statnews.com/2020/
https://www.statnews.com/2020/
So be very careful what you believe and "Peer reviewed" is not worth the paper it's printed on or as one of those links says, "Lies, damned lies and staistics" which is being presented as fact. | |
| |
| I Have to ask. on 13:14 - Jan 7 with 1229 views | Scotia |
There are lots of problems with Peer review, but it is basically all we have got to verify science at the moment - with the exception of the real world. Which is where a lot of my issues with these wonder drugs comes from, the vast majority of the scientific and medical world have given them no credibility whatsoever. Or in some rare cases are still studying them.
There would be nothing to lose from using them if they did some good, and some health services around the world would use them in that case, but none are. There are a tiny amount of people benefiting from this pandemic - for it to be a conspiracy at any level is just crazy
There are so many journals around at the moment that almost anything could get published and peer reviewed, the contents of the paper and the associated peer review could be as bad as each other. For subjects's that I'm not especially familiar with I stick to the long respected journals, in the case of covid, something like the Lancet or BMJ.
That is why you actually have to completely objectively look at what is being claimed. A paper which someone claims to prove a miracle cure, but states it's own "clear limitations" obviously does no such thing. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| I Have to ask. on 15:11 - Jan 7 with 1214 views | A_Fans_Dad |
You have just repeated what I have been saying about Peer Review (known as pal review) for years.
You will be in the prof's bad books now.
You are asking the question that is the original post.
Why are many countries officially using and adopting Ivermectin in particular if it did not work?
Because of so called experts, ignorance and greed.
There is no money in these old established, very cheap and well tested drugs.
They would rather go with fortune making untested (by traditional standards) Vaccines, but at the expense of everything else.
I am glad that I have at least made you think about it. [Post edited 7 Jan 2021 17:48]
| | | |
| I Have to ask. on 15:16 - Jan 7 with 1211 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| I Have to ask. on 13:14 - Jan 7 by Scotia |
There are lots of problems with Peer review, but it is basically all we have got to verify science at the moment - with the exception of the real world. Which is where a lot of my issues with these wonder drugs comes from, the vast majority of the scientific and medical world have given them no credibility whatsoever. Or in some rare cases are still studying them.
There would be nothing to lose from using them if they did some good, and some health services around the world would use them in that case, but none are. There are a tiny amount of people benefiting from this pandemic - for it to be a conspiracy at any level is just crazy
There are so many journals around at the moment that almost anything could get published and peer reviewed, the contents of the paper and the associated peer review could be as bad as each other. For subjects's that I'm not especially familiar with I stick to the long respected journals, in the case of covid, something like the Lancet or BMJ.
That is why you actually have to completely objectively look at what is being claimed. A paper which someone claims to prove a miracle cure, but states it's own "clear limitations" obviously does no such thing. |
How can you just outright LIE like that?
"There are none that are using them"
When I have provided many links to countries that are using them.
It is not just your ethics that are in question, but your integrity as well.
Absolutely disgraceful. | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 15:42 - Jan 7 with 1207 views | Scotia |
| I Have to ask. on 15:16 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
How can you just outright LIE like that?
"There are none that are using them"
When I have provided many links to countries that are using them.
It is not just your ethics that are in question, but your integrity as well.
Absolutely disgraceful. |
There are no leading health service's routinely using them. You have posted a couple of links which amount to a small number of Dr's using them in deprived nations - probably out of desperation and in the absence of anything else.
Even if they worked in those cases the evidence would be clear. | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 16:41 - Jan 7 with 1191 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| I Have to ask. on 15:42 - Jan 7 by Scotia |
There are no leading health service's routinely using them. You have posted a couple of links which amount to a small number of Dr's using them in deprived nations - probably out of desperation and in the absence of anything else.
Even if they worked in those cases the evidence would be clear. |
Is the second largest populated country in the world big enough for you.
As I have posted before the Indian Government & health service authorised it months ago.
They even provide a do it yourself home kit for those not already needing hospitalisation.
https://trialsitenews.com/goa-
https://www.rxindia.com/medici
Now stop lying. [Post edited 7 Jan 2021 16:42]
| | | |
| I Have to ask. on 17:58 - Jan 7 with 1170 views | Scotia |
| I Have to ask. on 16:41 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
Is the second largest populated country in the world big enough for you.
As I have posted before the Indian Government & health service authorised it months ago.
They even provide a do it yourself home kit for those not already needing hospitalisation.
https://trialsitenews.com/goa-
https://www.rxindia.com/medici
Now stop lying. [Post edited 7 Jan 2021 16:42]
|
You really should read links before you post them. | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 18:26 - Jan 7 with 1165 views | Professor |
| I Have to ask. on 17:58 - Jan 7 by Scotia |
You really should read links before you post them. |
Don’t know why you bother. The discussion around ivermectin and doxycycline and their limitations in respiratory disease have gone round in a circle since early summer. There are better options. Peer review is imperfect but have asked what the alternative is. Those links are part of India’s massive unlicensed drugs business. I am involved in a project on antimicrobial use and resistance in India that is quite an eye opener. Good news at least that some of the drugs/monoclonal antibody therapy repurposed from rheumatoid arthritis have been approved today. Another marginal gain. But as Dave Brailsford has shown, added together can lead to success. | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 20:43 - Jan 7 with 1145 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| I Have to ask. on 18:26 - Jan 7 by Professor |
Don’t know why you bother. The discussion around ivermectin and doxycycline and their limitations in respiratory disease have gone round in a circle since early summer. There are better options. Peer review is imperfect but have asked what the alternative is. Those links are part of India’s massive unlicensed drugs business. I am involved in a project on antimicrobial use and resistance in India that is quite an eye opener. Good news at least that some of the drugs/monoclonal antibody therapy repurposed from rheumatoid arthritis have been approved today. Another marginal gain. But as Dave Brailsford has shown, added together can lead to success. |
Look re-inforcements.
Now we have prof lying as well with this "Those links are part of India’s massive unlicensed drugs business."
I assume that you didn't read the first link, or are you saying that they are lying?
Are the India Times, India Express and dnaIndia all lying about Upper Pradesh authorising it?
https://timesofindia.indiatime
https://indianexpress.com/arti
h https://www.dnaindia.com/india
"But as Dave Brailsford has shown, added together can lead to success. "
Which is what I have been saying, how many of those drugs have prophylactic ability like Ivermectin has shown during it's studies?
So if every little helps why aren't we using it? | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 21:21 - Jan 7 with 1133 views | Professor |
| I Have to ask. on 20:43 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
Look re-inforcements.
Now we have prof lying as well with this "Those links are part of India’s massive unlicensed drugs business."
I assume that you didn't read the first link, or are you saying that they are lying?
Are the India Times, India Express and dnaIndia all lying about Upper Pradesh authorising it?
https://timesofindia.indiatime
https://indianexpress.com/arti
h https://www.dnaindia.com/india
"But as Dave Brailsford has shown, added together can lead to success. "
Which is what I have been saying, how many of those drugs have prophylactic ability like Ivermectin has shown during it's studies?
So if every little helps why aren't we using it? |
Because, as you were told back last summer, the concentrations needed for any anti-viral effect
as a therapeutic in the respiratory tract are high and can have toxicity issues. Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug, used mostly on livestock. It has known toxicity problems. Do you honestly think if it were effective then it would not be used? Or are you so down the conspiracy rabbit hole, you believe everyone is on the make. Remember dexamethasone, shown to be effective in larger trials is a cheap, off patent drug.
As for India, and I think you mean Uttar Pradesh,
One state licencing use means relatively little. As
Scotia suggests, the modest benefit may outweigh the cost in terms of toxicity where other options and limited ICU care is available.
However, unlike HCQ, ivermectin is not completely off the board. There are ongoing studies with sufficient size and controls to evaluate lower doses as a prophylactic. That said, it’s use in the U.K. is likely to be superseded by vaccination. That should give a better indication of potential benefit against side effects. But correctly priority is on more effective vaccines. | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 21:44 - Jan 7 with 1128 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| I Have to ask. on 21:21 - Jan 7 by Professor |
Because, as you were told back last summer, the concentrations needed for any anti-viral effect
as a therapeutic in the respiratory tract are high and can have toxicity issues. Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug, used mostly on livestock. It has known toxicity problems. Do you honestly think if it were effective then it would not be used? Or are you so down the conspiracy rabbit hole, you believe everyone is on the make. Remember dexamethasone, shown to be effective in larger trials is a cheap, off patent drug.
As for India, and I think you mean Uttar Pradesh,
One state licencing use means relatively little. As
Scotia suggests, the modest benefit may outweigh the cost in terms of toxicity where other options and limited ICU care is available.
However, unlike HCQ, ivermectin is not completely off the board. There are ongoing studies with sufficient size and controls to evaluate lower doses as a prophylactic. That said, it’s use in the U.K. is likely to be superseded by vaccination. That should give a better indication of potential benefit against side effects. But correctly priority is on more effective vaccines. |
You obviously didn't bother to read my earlier posts then.
There have been 46 studies, 18 peer reviewed on Ivermectin for prophylactic and early treatment 77% & 85% improvements with no side effects.
You are behind the times.
Plus I made it quite clear that it was Uttar Pradesh, although I spelt it wrong as the links showed. With only 400 Million people, just about 6 times the size of the UK, it means relatively little. Right.
But of course there are other countries authorising it's use, because they are desperate to save lives any way they can.
So are you going to admit to being wrong this time or carry on with your "Those links are part of India’s massive unlicensed drugs business."
Are you also going to apologise to those Bangladeshi doctors you called sharks, quacks and conmen and the Australian who is only gastrologist?
They have carried out further successful studies, but that won't mean anything to you will it? | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 23:04 - Jan 7 with 1116 views | Professor |
| I Have to ask. on 21:44 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
You obviously didn't bother to read my earlier posts then.
There have been 46 studies, 18 peer reviewed on Ivermectin for prophylactic and early treatment 77% & 85% improvements with no side effects.
You are behind the times.
Plus I made it quite clear that it was Uttar Pradesh, although I spelt it wrong as the links showed. With only 400 Million people, just about 6 times the size of the UK, it means relatively little. Right.
But of course there are other countries authorising it's use, because they are desperate to save lives any way they can.
So are you going to admit to being wrong this time or carry on with your "Those links are part of India’s massive unlicensed drugs business."
Are you also going to apologise to those Bangladeshi doctors you called sharks, quacks and conmen and the Australian who is only gastrologist?
They have carried out further successful studies, but that won't mean anything to you will it? |
Just give it a rest.
I told you last year much of what is published is low quality and opportunistic rubbish. You linked an Indian site selling pharmaceuticals. The Aussie is a quack and discredited almost everywhere. He is a gastroenterologist for gods sake. I work with leading virologists. Not one has suggested using ivermectin. This guy is Nearly as bad as the Cummins, Sikora
And Yeadon company of charlatans.
Stop posting this dangerous idiocy.
Get a life away from conspiracy and the internet.
Please. For your benefit | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 23:12 - Jan 7 with 1111 views | onehunglow |
This is why I listen to experts in their field not those who trawl and make out they know it al.
Thanks for the work you do Paul. | |
| |
| I Have to ask. on 07:35 - Jan 8 with 1083 views | Scotia |
| I Have to ask. on 21:44 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad |
You obviously didn't bother to read my earlier posts then.
There have been 46 studies, 18 peer reviewed on Ivermectin for prophylactic and early treatment 77% & 85% improvements with no side effects.
You are behind the times.
Plus I made it quite clear that it was Uttar Pradesh, although I spelt it wrong as the links showed. With only 400 Million people, just about 6 times the size of the UK, it means relatively little. Right.
But of course there are other countries authorising it's use, because they are desperate to save lives any way they can.
So are you going to admit to being wrong this time or carry on with your "Those links are part of India’s massive unlicensed drugs business."
Are you also going to apologise to those Bangladeshi doctors you called sharks, quacks and conmen and the Australian who is only gastrologist?
They have carried out further successful studies, but that won't mean anything to you will it? |
Do you really think that the health system in place in Uttar Pradesh is comparable to our NHS?
They've reached for something out of desperation.
Yet again though, those links state they are using it instead of HCQ. I wonder why?
Edit, I just checked their stats, their test ratio is 1/1000 of ours and are therefore likely to have a considerably higher case and death rate than reported. The life expectancy is also just 64, 18 years younger than the average covid age of death.
It doesn't appear to be particularly successful, and neither did HCQ.
You really need to stop this nonsense. [Post edited 8 Jan 2021 7:58]
| | | |
| I Have to ask. on 09:48 - Jan 8 with 1059 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| I Have to ask. on 07:35 - Jan 8 by Scotia |
Do you really think that the health system in place in Uttar Pradesh is comparable to our NHS?
They've reached for something out of desperation.
Yet again though, those links state they are using it instead of HCQ. I wonder why?
Edit, I just checked their stats, their test ratio is 1/1000 of ours and are therefore likely to have a considerably higher case and death rate than reported. The life expectancy is also just 64, 18 years younger than the average covid age of death.
It doesn't appear to be particularly successful, and neither did HCQ.
You really need to stop this nonsense. [Post edited 8 Jan 2021 7:58]
|
"They've reached for something out of desperation. "
And we aren't desperate, with the whole damned country in Lockdown?
" they are using it instead of HCQ. I wonder why? "
Because it is better.
You really do love to cherry pick your data.
"their test ratio is 1/1000 of ours"
That might just have something to do with their pandemic starting 2 months later than ours.
That they have a country 12 times the size of ours and a population 20 times the size of ours, a logistic nightmare.
And yet they have managed, with what you call their crappy health service, to carry out 3 times as many tests as the UK in 2 months less time.
Of course their life expectancy is only 64 they have 10s of millions of desperately poor and unhealthy people living in slums.
Ideal for being ravaged by any kind of Virus.
They have 5 times as many cases as the UK and only twice as many deaths.
You suggest that they don't know how to count dead people.
Tell me again what their current mortality rate is compared to ours?
Just over 200/day. with 1.3 Billion people. [Post edited 8 Jan 2021 9:48]
| | | |
| I Have to ask. on 10:01 - Jan 8 with 1054 views | Professor |
| I Have to ask. on 09:48 - Jan 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
"They've reached for something out of desperation. "
And we aren't desperate, with the whole damned country in Lockdown?
" they are using it instead of HCQ. I wonder why? "
Because it is better.
You really do love to cherry pick your data.
"their test ratio is 1/1000 of ours"
That might just have something to do with their pandemic starting 2 months later than ours.
That they have a country 12 times the size of ours and a population 20 times the size of ours, a logistic nightmare.
And yet they have managed, with what you call their crappy health service, to carry out 3 times as many tests as the UK in 2 months less time.
Of course their life expectancy is only 64 they have 10s of millions of desperately poor and unhealthy people living in slums.
Ideal for being ravaged by any kind of Virus.
They have 5 times as many cases as the UK and only twice as many deaths.
You suggest that they don't know how to count dead people.
Tell me again what their current mortality rate is compared to ours?
Just over 200/day. with 1.3 Billion people. [Post edited 8 Jan 2021 9:48]
|
and you think cause of death is being recorded accurately and precisely?
Have you ever seen healthcare provision in a developing country?
Clueless. | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 10:24 - Jan 8 with 1045 views | Scotia |
| I Have to ask. on 09:48 - Jan 8 by A_Fans_Dad |
"They've reached for something out of desperation. "
And we aren't desperate, with the whole damned country in Lockdown?
" they are using it instead of HCQ. I wonder why? "
Because it is better.
You really do love to cherry pick your data.
"their test ratio is 1/1000 of ours"
That might just have something to do with their pandemic starting 2 months later than ours.
That they have a country 12 times the size of ours and a population 20 times the size of ours, a logistic nightmare.
And yet they have managed, with what you call their crappy health service, to carry out 3 times as many tests as the UK in 2 months less time.
Of course their life expectancy is only 64 they have 10s of millions of desperately poor and unhealthy people living in slums.
Ideal for being ravaged by any kind of Virus.
They have 5 times as many cases as the UK and only twice as many deaths.
You suggest that they don't know how to count dead people.
Tell me again what their current mortality rate is compared to ours?
Just over 200/day. with 1.3 Billion people. [Post edited 8 Jan 2021 9:48]
|
We're not desperate enough to encourage the entire population to take a completely unproven and untested drug. It could do more harm, either directly or indirectly.
First Covid case in Uttar Pradesh was in early March. Not two months after ours.
By far the most significant cause of mortality with Covid is age, not lifestyle. The next seems to be lifestyle related disease, I'd be interested to see what the level of Obesity is there too. The life expectancy in Uttar Pradesh is 25% lower than the average age of death for covid.
Of course they are underestimating covid deaths. They are testing very few people, they only have 5 times the amount of cases in a country who's population is at least 20 times larger than ours. Do you think they are undertaking autopsies on everyone?
You've made some really crazy comments before but this completely off the wall.
You are too gullible to be allowed to have access to the internet and too stupid to realise it. | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 11:10 - Jan 8 with 1041 views | Professor |
| I Have to ask. on 10:24 - Jan 8 by Scotia |
We're not desperate enough to encourage the entire population to take a completely unproven and untested drug. It could do more harm, either directly or indirectly.
First Covid case in Uttar Pradesh was in early March. Not two months after ours.
By far the most significant cause of mortality with Covid is age, not lifestyle. The next seems to be lifestyle related disease, I'd be interested to see what the level of Obesity is there too. The life expectancy in Uttar Pradesh is 25% lower than the average age of death for covid.
Of course they are underestimating covid deaths. They are testing very few people, they only have 5 times the amount of cases in a country who's population is at least 20 times larger than ours. Do you think they are undertaking autopsies on everyone?
You've made some really crazy comments before but this completely off the wall.
You are too gullible to be allowed to have access to the internet and too stupid to realise it. |
There is absolutely no way that developing countries are accurately recording Covid-Related deaths. In part, yes, the over 70 population is consideriderably smaller, which as you say is the biggest risk factor. The will and finance will not be there for mass qPCR testing and given the huge rate of respiratory disease as a killer in the poorest communities driven by multiple factors (including particulates from cooking stoves in rural areas) it is unlikely any delineation is made between Covid, TB, pneumococcal pneumonia or just any opportunistic infection.
There are some paradoxes-Sub-Saharan Africa has had low rates, even allowing for fewer older people. In time the reasons may emerge, but its certainly not due to any drug-based therapy.
Perhaps luck, or perhaps more fundamental | | | |
| I Have to ask. on 13:37 - Jan 8 with 1016 views | Catullus |
From my obviously limited perspective, could India be using it because it's the cheapest option, Maybe easiest to get too?
India has a massive population and when you see how most of them live, when you see the poverty and living conditions straight out of a history book and then realise India has nuclear and space programmes and massive armed forces while so many of their own people go without even basic things, I guess it's easy to be cynical. Which is why I could believe they'd just taken the cheapest option even if it's bad. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.