Perhaps you would care to point out where Korey says this? What methodology he used? What is the difference between including these most populous districts or not, considering they reported no deaths whatsoever? And what do you think it does to the total when you subtract out these highly populous districts?
And considering you tend to see not only higher total deaths, but a higher rate of deaths/1000 of a highly contagious disease in highly populous areas for the simple reason people are crowded together in multi-storey buildings, using crowded public transport, etc., removing these districts will skew the overall number of deaths/1000 as well.
What claims ? and by who of a start date 5/2021 ? Dr. Kory specifically notes 08/2020 start date."
Perhaps Dr. Korey edited his SubStack in the meantime to correct this, or perhaps Dr. Mark was addressing one of the other Uttar Pradesh articles or graphs floating around the internet at the time.
Ivermectin is not a vaccine. Where was it suppose to end the alpha phase and prevent delta ?
Dr. Korey claims that ivermectin is an effective Covid prophylactic and treatment -- in other other words, he claims you won't get Covid if you take ivermectin, and if you catch it, ivermectin is an effective treatment.
Prophylactics are used when no vaccine is available. For example, people who have no natural immunity to malaria use prophylactic drugs to prevent getting it when travelling to areas where malaria is prevalent. There is no vaccine for malaria.
If ivermectin is so effective as a prophylactic, why didn't it hasten the end of the Alpha wave and prevent the Delta wave?
The problem with this is, the first part is taken from "Preliminary Analysis of Excess Mortality in India During the Covid-19 Pandemic (Update August 4, 2021)" (ps. There is an update Sept.2021) and all versions of this report have this disclaimer: "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.04.21261604v2.full-text
Yet you and Dr. Mark are taking it as gospel ?
It has since been published in the highly respected, long-established peer-reviewed American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9128677
Dr. Korey's findings have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, yet you take what he writes in his SubStack as gospel?
Rather than reconciling anomolies, throw all the data out. Almost as bad as changing the definitions of immunity\immunization\vaccines to fit your current results.
Yet this is precisely what you said Korey did in his defense at the beginning of your post. "Not included" is the same as "thrown out". So which way is it?
In the beginning I really hoped ivermectin and/or HCQ would turn out to be helpful. Both looked good in vitro, but then lots of things look good in vitro but end up not being effective in vivo. This turned out to be the case, sadly.
Dr. Mark explained how and why the levels needed to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro cannot be reached in vivo. You will need to scroll back in the video to see that section in the video. He also provided the graphs and slides he used. Both links given here:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4086071/posts?page=124#124
I got Covid so early, before there was any talk of ivermectin or HCQ, or I would have tried them myself.
It soon began to look like they were only mildly beneficial if at all, but I stayed on the fence until we finally got results from large placebo-controlled random clinical trials. These proved that they indeed are only mildly beneficial if at all.
Some Freepers say ivermectin on its own is no use, that it works as a zinc ionophore and the RCTs should have included zinc. There may be something to that. Other Freepers say quercetin works just as well as ivermectin as a zinc ionophore.
If you or others want to take ivermectin, with or without zinc, I think you should have that right. It's an old, cheap safe drug.
“I got Covid so early, before there was any talk of ivermectin or HCQ, or I would have tried them myself.”
Early in 2020 I ran across an HCQ study at PubMed from 2005. Actually it used CQ rather than HCQ, but CQ is basically a harsher version of the same drug.
The study was about the successful use of CQ against the original SARS virus. I mentioned it and posted a link to the study on an early Covid thread here at FR. The post didn’t get a single response. When Trump mentioned HCQ for Covid I was pretty sure that his people must have found that same study.
What turned out to be a problem is that the 2005 study was in vitro on Green Monkey kidney tissue. CQ worked great in the lab. But when SARS-2 showed up and HCQ was able to be tried in vivo on humans it didn’t work like it did in the lab. Later in 2020 PubMed had reports of attempts to use HCQ as a prophylactic for medical workers treating Covid patients. Medics taking HCQ contracted Covid at the same rate as those not taking it. But by then the conspiracy crowd had decided that The Real Reason it wasn’t being used was because it was going to prevent the evil vaccine makers from getting rich etc.