India’s recovery is not good news for BBC and UK Government

The above is the kind of news India is telling about itself today.

India’s infection and death peak surge has turned out, pro rata, to be far smaller than that in England, Wales or Northern Ireland in January, smaller even than in Scotland.

The BBC, only a few weeks ago, gazed obsessively at images from India as, like Italy, the US and Brazil before them, they provided a consoling distraction from the horrors in England they had tried to hide and now tried to replace with jingoistic accounts of the vaccine roll-out:

Today? Not a word on the falling infection levels or flattening death figures, on any evidence of recovery. No India must remain the ‘other’ reminding us how lucky we are here with Boris and Matt at the helm, ‘saving lives.’

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is untitled-107.png

9 thoughts on “India’s recovery is not good news for BBC and UK Government

    1. It could be. Dr. J. Campbell did a slot about this on his YT channel couple of weeks ago. He did say that the company who make ivermectin say it does not help with or cure Covid19. So it’s hard to know what’s going on, but certainly Indian doctors have been using it to good effect by all accounts.
      If an existing simple and cheap remedy was found, the vaccine producers would be out of business, similar situation with other meds for illnesses and conditions, also VitD, a penny a tablet, but research on the life saving health benefits across the globe is scant! Weird eh.


      1. Article says that Invermectin is no longer licensed (or patented) so company who brought it to the market is no longer the only source of the drug.


      2. If you want to find out about Invermectin that conspiracy nut link Clydebuilt posted is the the last place on earth to start, stick with John Campbell.

        He has had a few conversations with Dr Lawrie (on her findings from a meta-analysis of the various trials in combination), Google John Campbell and Invertmectin and drink in honest appraisal by medical professionals.

        Though the results were startling, without a large scale clinical trial to confirm, the proofs are simply not there for certification, which under normal circumstances is a lengthy, bureaucratic and expensive process.
        Despite pushing HMG, WHO et al to look at this again, there is a natural inertia to overcome of looking at any drug for a purpose beyond what it is currently certified to do, particularly when the focus of the authorities is heavily on what known to work against Covid, as more in the pipeline.

        Though I’ve no doubt whatsoever Big Pharma will be highly protective of their own formulations and markets, they bluntly cannot interfere in a thorough and independent analysis, PERIOD, it only feeds the conspiracy narrative.
        Merck’s patent has lapsed through time. so Invermectin is buttons to produce by anyone, anywhere, what is enticing is that it is an easily stored and transported drug for oral use.
        The point remain that full scale clinical trials are required to make sense of the anectotal, it does not matter a damn what seems to be known in medicine but what is conclusively known.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Have I got this right?

        (a) clinical trials cost money – but how much to gain regulatory approval of an ‘old’ drug if its safety is already assured through prior use?

        (b) if a drug is out of patent protection but a trial is required to assess its ‘efficacy’ for a new purpose then there may be little or no incentive for a commercial company to bear the cost of or otherwise support the required trial and for at least two reasons:

        (c) if the drug is proven to be successful in the trial in tackling the ‘new’ disease, any drug company can manufacture and sell it without intellectual property constraint because it’s out of patent protection; and also:

        (d) a successful therapy based on an ‘old’, out of patent drug would inevitably compete with drugs that pharma companies have recently invested in – they are looking to optimise financial returns from these to themselves whilst their own patent protection persists!

        If this is correct, public (health) interest is liable to get squeezed out in such particular circumstances.


      4. Sorry @stewartb, I’ve no idea of the costs, but my understanding of what Campbell and Lawrie were saying is such a trial would be government funded and administered.

        I vaguely remember in one exchange they referred to the documentation to be filled out proposing such a trial running to several hundred pages, and take 3 months plus to evaluate once submitted. Then there’s the slow process of the trials themselves and what evolves from them.
        None of this is rapid.

        Agreed that the financial interests of pharma companies may conflict IF Ivermectin is found to be a viable alternative, but in that unlikely event, tough.

        The most likely outcome is a preventative, or augment the arsenal they already have for alleviating post-Covid effects, but what excited Campbell went beyond Covid even if it is the current focus.
        Because of it’s broad spectrum effects, Ivermectin could potentially offer treatment for existing conditions for which doctors have nothing available, that is why both are so keen on trials, to establish facts.


      5. Stewartb . . . That’s my take on the article. . . . . Not in interest of Big Pharma for this drug to be used against Covid


  1. “Conspiracy Nut Link posted by Clydebuilt”

    Carefull . . . . That makes me sound like an expert. . . . .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.