> I don't know if you and I would even be able to find data from the Mexican program to see this precipitous drop, but health ministers from Mexico's federal go

> I don't know if you and I would even be able to find data from the Mexican program to see this precipitous drop, but health ministers from Mexico's federal government have appeared on Mexican TV and said pretty much what Kory is saying [0]. Government officials will say all kinds of things that make them look good. Numbers are falling? Great, it was because of lockdowns/vaccines/medication and it was definitely a result of our decisions! Numbers are rising? Oh well, we did what we could, it would've been far worse without whatever we did! Then, you compare the two countries and see that fatalities just rise and fall in tandem, even though measures have been quite different. What does this tell me? People are fooling themselves. > Yes, I would like to see larger sample sizes, but I'm also aware that being able to replicate another researcher's finding is a feat in and of itself in science. What about the studies that failed to replicate, like the one where Ivermectin causes a 33% increase in deaths? Of course that study isn't that strong either, but it's on the stronger side relative to the mass of very weak studies. > It seems more logical to me that they should be willing to embrace any solution to the problem, or multiple solutions. I don't disagree, but I think you're overselling Ivermectin as a solution. To be fair, I'm also skeptical about the efficacy of vaccines, particularly in those who need it the most. I don't think there is a solution. I think the time has come to stop collectivist measures and let people decide for themselves whether they want to "protect" themselves with a vaccine, Ivermectin or garlic. I'm going with garlic, not because I believe it to be effective at all, but because I like the taste and believe it to have the best risk/reward profile for myself, based on the data that I have seen, as well as the data I have not seen.